Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "158698564",
    "label": "Early Childhood Development #1: Early Childhood Development [3]",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158698564"
}

{
    "id": "158698564",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158698564",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Early Childhood Development #1: Early Childhood Development [3]",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158698564",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the First Lady's Office (Clinton Administration)",
        "Melanne Verveer's Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/2068127/42-t-2068127-20060198F-Seg4-017-001-2014-001.jpg",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/2068127/42-t-2068127-20060198F-Seg4-017-001-2014-001.jpg",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/2068127/42-t-2068127-20060198F-Seg4-017-001-2014-001.jpg",
    "imageCount": 159,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/158698564",
    "naId": 158698564,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-2068127-20060198F-Seg4-017-001-2014"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 159,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/foia/2006/2006-0198-F_Seg04/42-t-2068127-20060198F-Seg4-017-001-2014.pdf",
    "mediaId": "deaafc1acbb85ae5",
    "ocrText": "FOIA Number:\n2006-0198-F-4\nFOIA\nMARKER\nThis is not a textual record. This is used as an\nadministrative marker by the William J. Clinton\nPresidential Library Staff.\nCollection/Record Group:\nClinton Presidential Records\nSubgroup/Office of Origin:\nFirst Lady's Office\nSeries/Staff Member:\nMelanne Verveer\nSubseries:\nEarly Childhood Development Issue Binders\nOA/ID Number:\n19012\nFolderID:\nFolder Title:\nEARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT #1: EARLY CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT [3]\nStack:\nRow:\nSection:\nShelf:\nPosition:\nS\n59\n5\n4\n1\nWithdrawal/Redaction Sheet\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n001. schedule\nHillary Clinton [partial] (1 page)\n7/29/1996\nP6/b(6)\n002. memo\nGreg Simon to President Clinton, re: White House Conference on\n7/29/1996\nP5\nChildren's Television (3 pages)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nFirst Lady's Office\nMelanne Verveer (Early Childhood Development Issue Binders)\nOA/Box Number: 19012\nFOLDER TITLE:\nEarly Childhood Development #1: Early Childhood Development [3]\n2006-0198-F\nwr730\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\nb(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nan agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\n7.29.96: CHILDRENS\nTELEVISION\nWithdrawal/Redaction Marker\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n001. schedule\nHillary Clinton [partial] (1 page)\n7/29/1996\nP6/b(6)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nFirst Lady's Office\nMelanne Verveer (Early Childhood Development Issue Binders)\nOA/Box Number: 19012\nFOLDER TITLE:\nEarly Childhood Development #1: Early Childhood Development [3]\n2006-0198-F\nwr730\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\nb(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRA]\nan agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRAJ\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRA]\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\nSCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nMONDAY, JULY 29, 1996\nFINAL REVISED\nAME Zion Church\nLead Advance:\nSetti Warren\n202-456-5332\noffice\nWHCA pager\n#4854\nPress Advance:\nKaren Buchard\n[001]\nScheduler:\nRon Books\n202-456-5315\noffice\n202-456-5340\nfax\nP6/(b)(6)\nPREV RON\nThe White House\n9:00 am-\n9:25 am\nBRIEFING FOR CHILDREN'S TV CONFERENCE\nMap Room\nCLOSED PRESS\n9:25 am\nHRC, POTUS, VPOTUS AND MEG PROCEED TO Blue\nRoom\n9:30 am-\n9:40 am\nRECEIVING LINE\nBlue Room\nPOOL PRESS\nFORMAT:\n-- HRC, POTUS, VPOTUS, and MEG to do a\nreceiving line.\nNOTE: The line will flow from Red\nRoom/Blue Room/Green Room into the East\nRoom.\nPARTICIPANTS: Approximately 55 people to\nattend.\n9:45 am\nHRC, POTUS, VPOTUS AND MEG PROCEED TO East\nRoom\nSCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nMONDAY, JULY 29, 1996\nPAGE 2\n9:50 am-\n12:00 pm\nWHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CHILDREN'S TV\nEast Room\nPOOL PRESS\nFORMAT:\n:\nHRC, POTUS, VPOTUS and MEG are announced\ninto the room from the Blue Room and\nproceed to the head table on the south\nside of the room.\nNOTE: All 4 principals remain standing.\n:\nThe POTUS delivers remarks.\n--\nUpon conclusion of the remarks, all 4\nprincipals take their seats.\nNOTE: HRC proceeds to her seat on the\neast side of the room next to Fred\nRogers and Jack Valenti.\n--\nThe POTUS intros HRC.\n:\nHRC delivers remarks and opens the first\ndiscussion.\n:\nOpen discussion.\nNOTE: HRC will moderate the first\ndiscussion.\n:\nThe POTUS concludes the first discussion\nand intros MEG.\n:\nMEG delivers remarks and opens the\nsecond discussion.\n---\nOpen discussion.\nNOTE: MEG moderates the second\ndiscussion.\n-- The POTUS concludes the second\ndiscussion and intros The VPOTUS.\n:\nVPOTUS delivers remarks and opens the\nthird discussion.\n:\nOpen discussion.\nNOTE: The VPOTUS moderates the third\ndiscussion.\nSCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nMONDAY, JULY 29, 1996\nPAGE 3\n-- The POTUS concludes the third discussion\nand delivers closing remarks.\n-- HRC, POTUS, VPOTUS and MEG depart.\nPARTICIPANTS: Approximately 55 people to\nparticipate.\n12:05 pm-\n1:30 pm\nLUNCH/DOWNTIME\n1:35 pm-\n1:40 pm\nDROP-BY PHOTO\nDiplomatic Reception Room\nWH PHOTO ONLY\n1:45 pm\nDEPART South Portico\nEN ROUTE Renaissance Hotel\n[drive time: 10 minutes]\n1:55 pm\nARRIVE Renaissance Hotel\n999 9th Street, NW\nGreeters:\n- Mr. Brad Edwards, General Manager of Renaissance Hotel\n- Dr. Thaddeus Garrett, Convention Manager\n1:55 pm\nPROCEED TO ELEVATOR\n2:00 pm-\n2:10 pm\nMEET AND GREET\nVIP Hold\nWH PHOTO ONLY\nFORMAT:\n-- HRC will be greeted by Pastor and Mrs.\nCherry, Bishop and Mrs. Williams, and\nBishop Johnson.\n-- HRC will be escorted to the other\nbishops for the meet and greet.\n-- Following the meet and greet, HRC will\nhold while the bishops proceed to their\nseats.\nNOTE: Pastor and Mrs. Cherry, Bishop\nand Mrs. Williams and Bishop Johnson\nwill remain with HRC.\nSCHEDULE FOR HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nMONDAY, JULY 29, 1996\nPAGE 4\nPARTICIPANTS: Approximately 14 Bishops to\nparticipate in the meet and greet.\n2:15 pm\nPROCEED TO Grand Ballroom\n2:20 pm-\n2:50 pm\nAME ZION CHURCH GENERAL CONFERENCE\nGrand Ballroom\nHRC Hold: VIP Hold\nPhone: 202-898-9000\nFax: 202-289-0947\nOPEN PRESS\nFORMAT:\n-- HRC is escorted on stage by Bishop\nJohnson and Bishop Williams.\nNOTE: HRC will remain standing with\nBishop Williams during the introduction.\n-- Bishop Johnson intros HRC.\n-- HRC delivers remarks.\n-- HRC exits stage left escorted by Bishop\nJohnson and Bishop Williams to the\nmotorcade.\nNOTE: HRC will not work a ropeline.\n-- HRC departs.\nPARTICIPANTS: Approximately 3000 people to\nattend.\n2:55 pm\nDEPART Renaissance Hotel\nEN ROUTE White House\n[drive time: 10 minutes]\n3:05 pm\nARRIVE South Portico\n3:10 pm-\n3:55 pm\nDOWN TIME\n4:00 pm-\n4:40 pm\nBRIEFING\nOval Office\nCLOSED PRESS\nWHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CHILDRENS\nTELEVISION\nMONDAY, JULY 29, 1996\nOF\nRESIDENT THE OF SEAL SANTS THE UNITED\nBRIEFING BOOK FOR THE PRESIDENT, VICE\nPRESIDENT, MRS. CLINTON AND MRS. GORE\nTable of Contents\nTAB A\nEvent Memo\nTAB B\nBrief Overview and Schedule\nTAB C\nParticipant Bios\nTAB D\nPresident's Opening Statement\nTAB E\nScript for the Meeting\nTAB F\nBackground Summary Memo from Greg Simon\nTAB G\nNew Dr. Huston Study and Summaries of other Studies\nTAB H\nBackground memos on Children's TV and 3 hours\nTAB I\nAdministration Statements on Childrens programming & Chronology\nTAB J\nImplementation Group for Television Ratings\nTAB K\nCongressional Statements by Representative Markey\nJuly 27, 1996\nWHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION\nLOCATION:\nEast Room\nDATE:\nJuly 29, 1996\nTIME:\n9:30 am - 12:00 pm\nFROM:\nGreg Simon and Eric Anderson\nI.\nPURPOSE\nTo discuss ways to improve the quality and quantity of children's programming. You\nannounced in Glendale, California in June that you would invite leaders of the television\nnetworks and the nation's pre-eminent children's programming developers to come to the\nWhite House before the end of July. With approval of the three-hour rule, the availability\nof quality children's programming will become more important.\nYou and the Vice President had a successful meeting with media leaders in February\nwhich resulted in the industry's agreement to develop a ratings system that will be\ncompatible with the v-chip.\nII.\nBACKGROUND\nSee separate notebook for background paper and format for the meeting.\nIII.\nPARTICIPANTS\nThe President\nThe First Lady\nThe Vice President\nMrs. Gore\nDecker Anstrom, president and CEO, National Cable Television Association\nBarry Baker, president and CEO, River City Broadcasting\nJeff Bewkes, chairman, president and CEO, Home Box Office\nDavid Britt, president, Children's Television Workshop (CTW)\nLeVar Burton, TV Actor\nGary Chapman, president and CEO, LIN Television Corporation\nPeggy Charren, founder, Action for Children's Television (ACT)\nBetty Cohen, president, The Cartoon Network\nErvin Duggan, president and CEO, Public Broadcasting System\nPeter Eio, president, Lego Systems\nLinda Ellerbee, president, Lucky Duck Productions\nPeter Engel, executive, NBC\nAugusto Failde, co-founder and president, Tropix Media, Inc.\nRich Frank, president, Academy of TV, Arts, and Sciences\nEdward Fritts, president and CEO, National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)\nJames Goodmon, president, Capitol Broadcasting\nDr. Kathleen Hall Jamieson, dean, University of Pennsylvania School of Communication\nJames Hedlund, president, Association of Local Television Stations\nNeil Hoffman, vice president of programming, USA Network\nAletha Huston, University Distinguished Professor of Human Development and co-\ndirector of the Center for Research on the Influence of TV on Children, University\nof Kansas\nKaren Jaffe, KidsNet\nLucy Johnson, senior vice president, CBS Entertainment\nPhilip A. Jones, chairman, National Association of Broadcasting\nJamie Kellner, chief executive officer, Warner Brothers Television Network\nDavid Kleeman, executive director, American Center for Children's Television\nGary Krisel, Dreamworks SKG\nGeraldine Laybourne, president, Disney/ABC Cable Network\nMargaret Loesch, president, Fox Children's Network\nAnne MacDonald, vice president for consumer marketing, Pizza Hut World Wide\nCindy Mahmoud, vice president of syndication, Black Entertainment Television (BET)\nVirginia (Ginny) Markell, vice president for programming, National PTA\nJudith McHale, president and CEO, Discovery Channel\nRobert Meers, president and CEO, Reebok\nGreg Meidel, chairman, MCA Television\nNewton Minow, counsel, Sidley & Austin\nDr. Kathryn Montgomery, president, Center for Media Education\nJack Myers, chairman and CEO, Television Programming Partners\nBill Nye, host and head-writer of children's series, \"Disney Presents Bill Nye the Science\nGuy\"\nJennifer Perry, executive director, Children's Action Network (CAN)\nDr. Robert Phillips, deputy medical director, The American Psychiatric, Association\nDr. Alvin Pouissant, professor of psychiatry, Judge Baker Children's Center\nNelson Price, National Council of Churches\nVictoria Rideout, director, Children and the Media Program at Children Now\nRay Rodriguez, president and chief operating officer, Univision Television Network\nFred Rogers, \"Mister Rogers Neighborhood\"\nJohn Sarsen, Jr., president and CEO, Association of National Advertisers\nHerb Scannell, president, Nickelodean Networks\nSander Schwartz, senior vice president, Columbia Children's Programming\nJohn Sie, CEO and chairman, Encore Media Company\nJames Steyer, founder and CEO, JP Kids, Inc.\nElizabeth Thoman, founder and executive director, Center for Media Literacy\nDr. Whitney Vanderweff: executive director, National Alliance for Non-Violent\nProgramming\nJack Valenti, President and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America.\nIV.\nPRESS PLAN\nPOOL PRESS\nV.\nSEQUENCE OF PROGRAM\nYou, the First Lady, the Vice President, and Mrs. Gore proceed to the Blue Room\nfor a photo receiving line.\nYou, the First Lady, the Vice President, and Mrs. Gore will then be announced\ninto the East Room and will proceed to the head table.\nNOTE: The guests will be seated around a U-shaped table. On the table there\nwill be tent cards for each guest with their names and the organizations they\nrepresent.\nYou will make remarks.\nYou, the First Lady, the Vice President, and Mrs. Gore will then proceed to your\nseats.\nYou will then introduce the First Lady who will open the first discussion. The\ntheme of this discussion is the \"Importance of Television as a Positive Force in\nChild Development.\"\nSIGNE\nYou will then conclude the first discussion and introduce Mrs. Gore.\nMrs. Gore will open the second discussion. The theme of this discussion is\n\"Models of Success in Children's Educational Programming.\"\nYou will conclude the second discussion and introduce the Vice President.\nThe Vice President will open the third discussion. The theme of this discussion is\n\"Overcoming Barriers to Producing More and Better Children's Television.\"\nYou will then conclude the third discussion and make closing remarks.\nYou, the First Lady, the Vice President, and Mrs. Gore will then depart.\nVI.\nREMARKS\nYour remarks will be provided.\nBrief Bios On Conference Participants\nAnstrom, Decker-\nDecker Anstrom is President and CEO of the National Cable Television Association.\nPreviously, Anstrom served as senior staff member at the Office of Management and Budget and\nas Assistant Director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel.\nBaker, Barry-\nBarry Baker was the President, CEO, and co-founder of River City Broadcasting, which\nrecently merged with Sinclair Broadcast Group. Baker will now serve as President and CEO of\nSinclair Communications. In March 1995, Baker was installed as chairman of the Television\nBureau of Advertising's board of directors.\nBewkes, Jeff-\nJeff Bewkes, the Chief Executive Officer and President of HBO, was recently also named\nChairman in November of 1995. In addition, he is a member of the managing committee of\nComedy Central, a trustee of the Walter Kaitz Foundation, and a member of the National Cable\nTelevision Association Board of Directors and the Cable Academy Board of Governors.\nHBO participated with a Canadian company in producing a series of short films entitled\nthe \"Composer's Specials,\" a series of short films featuring a classical composer and his\nfriendship with a child. The series has won numerous awards, including a 1993 Primetime\nEmmy for Outstanding Children's Program for \"Beethoven Lives Upstairs.\"\nBritt, David-\nDavid Britt has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Children's Television\nWorkshop (CTW) since 1990, after joining the company in 1971 as assistant director of a CTW\nproject. He is also a trustee of CTW. In 1993 he was elected to serve as the first Chairman of\nthe Board of Governors for the American Center for Children's Television, an organization\npromoting excellence in television programming. In 1996, he was elected to be a member of the\nCouncil on Foreign Relations.\nBurton, LeVar-\nLeVar Burton, who is best known for his role as Lt. Commander Geordi LaForge on the\nTV series \"Star Trek: The Next Generation,\" is also the host and co-executive producer of the\nPBS series \"Reading Rainbow.\" The show introduces children to the world of reading and\nbooks. In February, President Clinton nominated Burton to the U.S. National Commission on\nLibraries and Information Science, which advises the White House and Congress on domestic\nand foreign library and information services, policies, and plans.\nBurton was a board member of the National Endowment for Children's Educational\nTelevision created by the Children's Television Act, which did not receive funding over the last\ntwo years by Congress.\n1\nChapman, Gary-\nGary Chapman is President and CEO of LIN Television Corporation. LIN-TV is a\npartner with Disney in the widely acclaimed children's program \"Bill Nye the Science Guy.\"\nChapman is on the Board of Directors for the Broadcast Pioneers Library and the Association for\nMaximum Service Television.\nCharren, Peggy-\nPeggy Charren founded Action for Children's Television (ACT), a national advocacy\norganization, in 1968. The 10,000 member group works to encourage program diversity and\neliminate commercial abuses in children's television. ACT promote awareness of issues relating\nto children's television though national conferences, publications, public education campaigns,\ndialogue with broadcasters, and petitions to federal regulatory agencies. Charren owns and\noperates Quality Book Fairs, a company that organizes children's book fairs. She also was the\nco-author of The TV Smart Book for Kids, and Changing Channels: Living (Sensibly) with\nTelevision, and is the author of Television, Children, and the Constitutional Bicentennial.\nCosby, Bill-\nBill Cosby is a well-known actor, TV spokesman, writer, and comedian. For eight years\nhe starred on the TV hit, \"The Cosby Show,\" and in 1994 he began his most recent series, \"The\nCosby Mysteries.\" His books include Fatherhood, Time Flies, Childhood, and Love and\nMarriage. He has released 21 comedy and musical albums. Along with partners Tom Werner\nand Marcy Carsey, he helped produce \"A Different World,\" which aired on NBC for seven\nseasons.\nCohen, Betty-\nBetty Cohen is the President of Cartoon Network Worldwide and TNT International. In\naddition, she oversees the educational division of Turner Broadcasting -- Turner Educational\nServices, Inc. -- which provides selected company resources for use in the classroom. Ms.\nCohen also sits on the Board of Governors of the American Center for Children's Television.\nDuggan, Ervin-\nErvin Duggan has been the President and CEO of the Public Broadcasting Service since\nFebruary 1994, where he has committed himself to bringing innovation to education and\ntechnology. He was instrumental in the creation of PTV, The Ready to Learn Service of PBS,\nwhich helps parents use television to prepare children for school. Duggan was nominated to the\nFCC by former President George Bush and helped shape policies governing the convergence of\nbroadcasting, cable, satellite, telephone, and computer technologies.\nAs President of PBS, Duggan has made on-line and other new media educational services\na priority. PBS announced a full 6 hours of preschool programming last year. The average PBS\nstation carries 6 hours of educational children's programming every day. PBS has new children's\nprogramming in the works, including \"Kratts Creatures,\" a family wildlife adventure series, and\n\"Arthur\", a 30-episode daily series about growing up and exploring the world.\n2\nPeter Eio-\nPeter Eio is President of Lego Systems.\nEllerbee, Linda-\nLinda Ellerbee's production company, Lucky Duck Productions, has earned the reputation\nas an supplier of outstanding children's programming through the TV news and documentary\nseries, \"Nick News,\" which Ellerbee produces, writes, and hosts. The series has dealt with topics\nas diverse as the conflict in Bosnia, toy guns, domestic violence, and immigration. Ellerbee has\nreceived most of TV's highest honors, including several Emmy, Peabody, CableACE, and\nColumbia duPont Awards. For three years in a row she has been honored by the Television\nCritics Association for her outstanding achievement in children's programming. Ellerbee's book,\nAnd So It Goes, remained on the New York Times bestseller list for five months.\nEngel, Peter-\nPeter Engel is Chairman of Peter Engel Productions, a subsidiary of NBC which produces\nchildren's programming. He joined NBC in 1986 and is the executive producer of such NBC\nseries as \"Saved By The Bell: The New Class,\" \"Hang Time,\" and \"California Dreams.\" Engel\nhas received the Golden Eagle Award, The Humanitas Programs Award, and The Angel Award.\nFailde, Augusto-\nAugust Failde is the co-founder and President of Tropix Media, Inc. The company\npursues new media ventures targeting the fast-growing U.S. Hispanic and Latin American\nmarkets. Failde has successfully assisted several of the country's leading entertainment\ncorporations to leverage their assets into Latino markets at home and abroad.\nFrank, Rich-\nRich Frank is President of the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and the\nchairman and CEO of C3, a company that he created with cable television/telecommunications\ngiant Comcast Corporation. Frank established the Academy's \"Campaign Against Substance\nAbuse,\" which dramatically changed the portrayal of drug use in television programming, and he\nparticipated in the 1988 White House Conference for a Drug Free America.\nFrank made a dramatic speech at a recent National Association of Broadcasters\nconvention calling on this fellow television industry players to make a stronger commitment to\nchildren's television. He supports the three hour minimum.\nFritts, Edward-\nEddie Fritts is the President and CEO of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB).\nNAB is the largest organization of television and radio broadcasters in the U.S. Mr. Fritts holds\nseats on the Advertising Council and the National Commission Against Drunk Driving. In 1988\nhe received the first University of Mississippi Silver Mike Award for his significant\ncontributions to the field of broadcast journalism.\n3\nGoodmon, James-\nJim Goodmon is the owner and President of Capitol Broadcasting Co. Capitol owns and\noperates WRAL-TV (an NBC affiliate), WRAL Mix 101.5, and a new TV station, WRAZ\nchannel 50. Goodmon owns two local minor league sports franchises, the Raleigh Flyers soccer\nteam, and the Durham Bulls baseball team. He is on the Board of Directors for the North\nCarolina Public Television Foundation and the North Carolina Partnership for Children.\nHedlund, James-\nJames Hedlund is President of the Association of Local Television Stations.\nIn many markets the independent stations are the only stations that carry any children's\nprogramming during the week. Most of it is cartoons that are purely entertaining, but they have\nbegun to carry some educational programming as well. In 1993 the ALTS (then INTV) filed\ncomments with the FCC advocating a minimum requirement of 2 hours per week (only one hour\nof core programming). They argúed that it was important for broadcasters to have certainty and a\nlevel playing field. Soon after filing they have been drawn back into the NAB position of\nopposition.\nHoffman, Neil-\nNeil Hoffman is Vice President of Programming for USA Network.\nHuston, Aletha-\nAletha Huston is University Distinguished Professor of Human Development at the\nUniversity of Kansas and Co-Director of the University's Center for Research on the Influence of\nTV on Children. Professor Huston's book, Big World, Small Screen: The Role of Television in\nAmerican Society, won the award for Distinguished Contribution to Psychology and the Media\nfrom the Division of Media Psychology of the American Psychological Association. She has\nconducted research on television and children since 1970, when she carried out a ground-\nbreaking field experiment investigating the effects of pro-social television and violent programs\nfor the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and Social Behavior.\nJaffe, Karen-\nKaren Jaffe is Executive Director of KidsNet, a computerized clearinghouse for\nchildren's television and radio. This information service currently serves subscribers in the U.S.\nand abroad including schools, libraries, public TV stations, cable access stations, hospitals,\nregional media centers and state agencies, as well as producers, distributors, syndicators, cable\nMSOs, education and industry associations, and public, commercial TV and cable networks.\nJamieson, Kathleen Hall-\nKathleen Hall Jamieson is a Professor of Communications and Dean of the Annenberg\nSchool for Communications at the University of Pennsylvania. Ms. Jamieson has also\nestablished herself as an author, writing four books. One of these, Packaging the Presidency,\nwon the Speech Communication Association's Golden Anniversary Book Award. Her book--\nEloquence in an Electronic Age received the Winans-Wichelns Book Award.\nJamieson has headed up the effort at Annenberg to play a role in children's television\n4\nissues: She worked with Peggy Charren to propose an Annenberg Blue Ribbon Commission to\njudge the quality of children's educational programs; the Vice President attended their press\nconference announcing this Commission. The premise of the Commission is that with a\nrespected independent third party involved, parents will be able to get information about program\nquality, and the FCC can rely on experts and independent sources to determine whether programs\nare truly educational.\nJohnson, Lucy-\nLucy Johnson is Senior Vice President for Daytime and Children's Programs and Special\nProjects at CBS Entertainment.\nJones, Philip A.-\nPhilip Jones serves as President of the Meredith Broadcasting Group, which includes\ndirecting the day-to-day operations of Meredith's seven television stations. Jones is Joint Board\nChairman of the NAB (National Association of Broadcasters). He serves on the boards of\ndirectors of Broadcast Music, Inc., the Television Operators Caucus, and Maximum Service\nTelevision, Inc.\nKellner, Jamie-\nJamie Kellner is a founder and the CEO of Warner Brothers Television Network. \"Kids'\nWB!\" has rapidly become the second most popular broadcast children's network, carrying\nprograms like Steven Spielberg's Emmy-winning \"Animaniacs.\" In 1985 he became President of\nthe Fox Broadcasting Company and was instrumental in the creation of the Fox Children's\nNetwork.\nKleeman, David-\nDavid Kleeman is the Executive Director of the American Center for Children's\nTelevision. The Center sponsors the Ollie Awards for excellence in children's programming.\nThe Center works towards excellence in children's media by creating opportunities for skill\ndevelopment and experience exchange among TV, new media, education, research, and child\ndevelopment experts. In 1995 Kleeman was appointed by the Secretary of Commerce to the\nNational Advisory Council on Children's Educational Television. He is the co-founder of the\nWorld Alliance of Television for Children. From 1983-1988, Kleeman worked with the Public\nBroadcasting Service, developing and acquiring children's and cultural programs, and later\nserved as second-in-charge of national scheduling.\nKrisel, Gary-\nGary Krisel is a principle with Dreamworks SKG and heads the studio's television\nanimation division. The newest project for Dreamworks is Dreamworks Interactive, an effort in\nconjunction with Microsoft to create computer games and interactive stories to be produced\nwithin the year.\nDreamworks has deals to supply programming to CBS and ABC (now part of Disney).\nThe studio has been seeking joint ventures with networks to produce children's television\n5\nprogramming. Children's programming was so important to Disney that it struck a side\nagreement in July -- separate from the acquisition deal with ABC -- enabling the studio to control\nABC's Saturday morning children's fare as early as this fall.\nLaybourne, Geraldine-\nGeraldine Laybourne was named President of Disney/ABC Cable Networks in late 1995,\nafter spending fifteen years with Nickelodeon. One of the hallmarks of her tenure at\nNickelodeon was the inclusion of children in focus groups when planning new shows. In 1995\nshe and Nickelodeon were honored with The Spotlight Award from the Creative Coalition for\n\"The Big Help,\" a national grassroots campaign designed to encourage children to volunteer in\ntheir communities. In 1995 she was inducted into the Broadcasting & Cable Hall of Fame. In\nApril she was honored with the New York Women in Communications 1996 Matrix Award for\nBroadcasting.\nLaybourne recently called on advertisers to set aside 10% of their ad budgets for\neducational shows. She has been praised for successfully introducing positive female TV\ncharacters.\nABC plans to overhaul its Saturday morning lineup with a lot of help from new owner\nDisney, to \"be very aggressive in going after the youth market over the next few years,\"\naccording to ABC President Robert Iger. ABC's fall schedule calls for 60 percent of the\nSaturday morning programs to be produced by Disney. The lineup includes \"Flash Forward,\" a\nkids comedy about the social misadventures of 13-year-olds. Also coming from Disney is \"The\nMighty Ducks,\" a new animated series that is loosely inspired by two Disney comedy films of the\nsame title. However, this animated series is about \"crime-fighting, hockey-playing alien ducks\nfrom outer space.\" ABC will also add \"Brand Spanking New Doug,\" a series based on the\npopular animated \"Doug\" series that has aired on Nickelodeon.\nLoesch, Margaret-\nMargaret Loesch is the founding President of Fox Children's Network. Loesch\nhandpicked such shows as \"X-Men,\" \"Goosebumps,\" the Emmy-Award winning \"Where in the\nWorld is Carmen San Diego,\" and \"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.\" Before going to Fox,\nLoesch was the President and CEO at Marvel Productions, working with the \"Jim Henson's\nMuppet Babies,\" and \"GI Joe.\" Loesch was also the Executive Vice President for Programming\nat Hanna-Barbera Productions and developed the Emmy-Award winning series, \"The Smurfs.\"\nLoesch was responsible for the roll-out of the Cub House children's educational\nprogramming block each weekday at 8:30 am on FOX. This was the first weekday educational\nprogramming on any network since \"Captain Kangaroo\" went off the air. Many FOX affiliates\ndo not carry this network-provided programming, instead carrying local news programs during\nthat part of the day; some carry it later in the afternoon. In the D.C. market, FOX carries\n\"Bobby's World,\" which is not its strongest educational program.\nMacDonald, Anne-\nAnne MacDonald is Vice President for Consumer Marketing with Pizza Hut World Wide.\n6\nMahmoud, Cindy-\nCindy Mahmoud currently serves as the Vice President of Development & Special\nProjects at Black Entertainment Television (BET). She is responsible for developing such\nprograms as \"Teen Summit, \"\"StoryPorch,\" and \"Kimboo & Kids.\" Ms. Mahmoud was the first\nAfrican-American female program executive in the history of commercial television. She has\nwon many awards, including Emmies, Irises, CEBA Awards, three Parent's Choice Awards, Five\nNEA Awards, and two San Francisco state awards.\nMarkell, Virginia-\nGinny Markell serves as the National PTA Vice President for Programs. She is a former\nHealth & Welfare Commission Chairman of the National PTA. Currently Markell is also a\nmember of the Communications/Marketing Committee, the Headquarters Committee and chairs\nthe Screening Committee.\nPTA was one of first groups to testify on the issue of children and television at hearings\nin the 1950s. They have been outspoken advocates ever since.\nMcHale, Judith-\nJudith McHale is the President and COO of Discovery Communications, Inc. McHale\nserves on the U.S. Department of State's Advisory Committee on International Communications\nand Information Policy. She also serves on the Board of Directors for the Congressional Award\nFoundation, Cable in the Classroom, and Cabletelevision Bureau.\nDiscovery Communications has recently purchased 117 Nature Company and\nScientific Revolution stores around the country. The Discovery Channel hopes to launch five\ncable networks this year, including a cable channel called Animal Planet, a 24-hour channel\nfeaturing children's programming and nature documentaries.\nMeers, Robert-\nRobert Meers is President and CEO of Reebok.\nMeidel, Greg-\nGreg Meidel was named Chairman of the MCA Television Group in October 1995. In\nthat capacity, he is responsible for managing all aspects of MCA's television business. Prior to\njoining MCA, Meidel was President and Chief Operating Officer of Fox Television's Twentieth\nTelevision.\nMinow, Newton-\nNewt Minow served as Chairman of the FCC under President Kennedy. Among other\nthings, he is well-known for having first referred to television as \"the vast wasteland.\"\nMontgomery, Kathryn-\nKathryn Montgomery is Co-Founder and President of the Center for Media Education, a\nWashington, D.C.-based public interest organization dedicated to educating the public and\npolicymakers about critical media issues. The Center's Campaign for Kids' TV is aimed at\n7\nimproving the quality of children's television and empowering parents and educators to deal more\neffectively with the media. Dr. Montgomery wrote a book, Target: Prime Time, which is a key\nwork on the relationships between advocacy groups and network entertainment television.\nMyers, Jack-\nJack Myers is Chairman and CEO of Television Programming Partners.\nNye, Bill-\nBill Nye is the host and head writer of the hit children's TV series \"Disney Presents Bill\nNye the Science Guy.\" In three seasons the show has been awarded two 1996 Daytime Emmy\nAwards, two Silver Apple Awards, three Parent's Choice Awards (1993, 1994, 1995), an\nEnvironmental Media Award, and a National Education Association Award. Nye's own science\ncareer is also off to a start, as he was just issued a patent for his collapsible, water-filled\nmagnifying glass.\nNye's show got started with funding from the National Science Foundation and now has\nfunding from Buena Vista Television (Disney) and and the Seattle public television station. Here\nin DC it is carried at 6 a.m. on channel 50 (Warner Brothers) and on two public television\nstations. Nye can speak well about the issue of why educational programs don't get good ratings.\nHe could explain that in those markets where the program is on regularly, is not routinely\npreempted (by, for example, sports broadcasts), and is promoted by the station, the ratings are\nsubstantially higher than they are in markets where these efforts are not made.\nPerry, Jennifer-\nJennifer Perry is the Executive Director of the Children's Action Network (CAN). CAN\nserves as the entertainment industry's voice for children. It informs the public about the needs of\nchildren by mobilizing the Hollywood community and marshalling the immense power of TV\nand film. CAN has also been involved with a number of major campaigns to improve the\nwelfare of children. Perry has co-produced several special programs including, \"Through our\nEyes,\" an award- winning video on the changing American family, and \"Listen Up: Young\nVoices For Change,\" a KCBS television special in response to the April 1992 unrest in Los\nAngeles county.\nPhillips, Robert-\nDr. Robert Phillips is Deputy Medical Director of the American Psychiatric Association\nand serves as Director of the APA Offices of Psychiatric Services and Minority and National\nAffairs. He has done work with the Justice Department, the National Institute of Mental Health\nand the Center for Mental Health Services. In May 1993 he was selected as a distinguished\nPsychiatric Lecturer of the American Psychiatric Association.\nPoussaint, Alvin-\nAlvin Poussaint is currently a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Faculty Associate\nDean for Student Affairs at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Poussaint is also the Director of the\nMedia Center for Children at the Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston. Poussaint is a\n8\nprominent spokesman on race relations in America. His books include Why Black Kill Blacks\nand Black Child Care. Poussaint was also a consultant for \"The Cosby Show.\"\nPrice, Nelson-\nUntil recently Nelson Price was the President and CEO of Faith & Values Cable\nNetwork. He is a trustee and the founding incorporator of National Interfaith Cable Coalition,\nInc. The Coalition has grown from having a dozen faith group members to over sixty. The\nnumber of cable households it reaches increased from 10 million to 26 million in March 1996.\nMr. Price has served on the Communications Commission of the National Council of Churches\nsince the early 1960's.\nRideout, Victoria-\nVicky Rideout is the Director of the Children and the Media Program at Children Now,\none of the nation's leading nonpartisan children's groups. Through independent research, policy\nadvocacy, public education, and an annual conference of media industry leaders, Children Now\nworks to improve the quality of news and entertainment media for and about children.\nRodriguez, Ray-\nRay Rodriguez is the President and Chief Operating Officer of Univision Television\nNetwork, the nation's leading Spanish-language television broadcasting company. In 1993 Mr.\nRodriguez was appointed by the Governor of Florida to serve on the Florida Entertainment\nCommission. He serves on the board of directors of several organizations, including the United\nWay, and on the board of the Television Ratings Implementation Group.\nRogers, Fred-\nFred Rogers originated and hosts PBS's longest running program, \"Mister Rogers'\nNeighborhood.\" The show is produced by Rogers' Pittsburgh-based nonprofit organization,\nFamily Communication, Inc. Select episodes of \"Mister Rogers' Neighborhood\" were just\nreleased as part of the CBS/Fox video series. Rogers has received numerous television awards,\nincluding a George Foster Peabody Award.\nSarsen, John Jr.-\nJohn Sarsen, Jr. has been President and CEO of the Association of National Advertisers\nsince May of 1994. He is a member of the Board of Directors of The Advertising Council,\nAdvertising Educational Foundation, Advertising Research Foundation, National Advertising\nReview Council, and World Federation of Advertisers.\nScannell, Herb-\nHerb Scannell joined Nickelodeon in 1988, beginning as a director of programming. In\n1990 he was promoted to Vice President of Programming and Development. This year he was\nappointed President of Nickelodeon Networks, succeeding Geraldine Laybourne. This puts Mr.\nScannell in charge of creative and business operations, domestically and internationally, and\ndaytime children's programming.\n9\nSchwartz, Sander-\nSander Schwartz is Senior Vice President of Columbia Children's Programming.\nSie, John-\nJohn Sie is the Chairman and CEO of Encore Media Corporation (EMC) and the\nInternational Channel. John Sie is also the founder of WAM!, a children's TV channel and\nsubsidiary of EMC. In 1982 Sie was awarded the Robert H. Beisswenger Memorial Award\n(Vanguard Associates Award) by the National Cable Television Association (NCTA). In 1986\nhe was honored with the Grand Tam Award from the Cable Administration and Marketing\nSociety. Sie is currently a member of the Board of Governors of the National Academy of Cable\nProgramming, the NCTA's Satellite Network Committee, and Honorary Chair of Cable Positive.\nSteyer, James-\nJames Steyer is the founder and CEO of JP Kids, a new multiple-media venture striving\nto serve the educational and pro-social needs of children. Currently, JP Kids is focusing its\nefforts on television programming and multiple media for kids.\nThomas, Elizabeth-\nElizabeth Thoman is Founder and Executive Director of the Center for Media Literacy.\nValenti, Jack-\nJack Valenti is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Motion Picture Association\nof America. Prior to his involvement with the MPAA, Valenti had a successful career in\nadvertising and was a Special Assistant in the Johnson Administration. Mr. Valenti has written\nseveral books and was awarded the Legion D'Honeur by the French Government.\nVanderwerff, Whitney-\nWhitney Vanderwerff joined the National Alliance for Non-Violent Programming in\n1993 and currently serves as its executive director. The Alliance is a non-profit network of\nnational women's organizations created solely to provide community options to address media\nviolence. She not only develops and implements the Alliance's programs in broad-based\ncommunity coalitions, but she delivers presentations and conducts hands-on programs focusing\non media literacy as violence prevention.\n10\nDRAFT 7/26/96 6:00 P.M. VERSION Agm\nPRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON\nOPENING STATEMENT FOR CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING SUMMIT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nJULY 29, 1996\nWe gather here with a clear purpose: To improve and expand educational television for our\nchildren.\nI believe this is a positive and hopeful time an age of enormous possibility a chance for us\nto build a country and a world that is stronger and safer and more full of opportunity than\nany that existed before.\nOur success in the next century depends on building strong families today. In the State of the\nUnion, I challenged us to do everything in our power to strengthen our families to help our\nparents raise decent, responsible, well-educated children, committed to our basic values. That\nis why we have worked so hard to give American families more control over one of the most\ninfluential forces in our country: Television.\nTelevision is part of our landscape: A typical child watches 25,000 hours of television before\nhis or her 18th birthday. Preschoolers watch 28 hours of television a week - Presidents,\nnearly that much.\nWe have dedicated ourselves to giving parents the power to screen out the television they\nknow their children should not see. I signed the V-Chip into law -- and now parents can stop\nprograms with explicit sexuality and violence from coming into their homes. You in the-\nentertainment industry did your part. Meeting in this very room 5 months ago, you\nvolunteered to rate shows for content. You came together as responsible corporate citizens to\ngive America's families an early-warning system; parents who use the V-Chip will now be\nable to block objectionable shows before it's too late. Together, these initiatives constitute an\ninvaluable arsenal for America's parents.\nBut that is only half the battle. As Americans, we do not define ourselves by what we stand\nagainst -- but by what we stand for. When we tear down the bad, we have never been content\nto leave just emptiness behind. We have always wanted to leave something beautiful in its\nplace.\nThat is what we must do today. With your help, we have made progress cleaning up the\ntelevision that is harmful to our children. Now we have the opportunity to use those same\nairwaves for something good: Educational programming that is as great as our kids are.\nTelevision can be a strong and positive force. It can help children learn to count, read, and\nthink. It can reinforce, rather than undermine, the values we work so hard to teach our\nchildren -- showing kids every day what it means to share, to respect themselves and others,\nto take responsibility for their actions, even to recognize that it's not easy being green.\n[Kermit the Frog.]\nSo this morning, I would like to hear from you about what we can do to broaden the\nspectrum of quality educational programming for children. I hope we can focus on 3 specific\nissues. First, I'd like to talk about the new research that shows how kids can learn valuable\nlessons from TV over the course of their young lifetimes. Second, I'd like to find out more\nabout what good shows look like. And third, I'd like us to talk about how we can break down\nthe barriers to the development and production of quality educational programming for\nchildren.\nBefore we begin, I would like to make an announcement. For the past year, I have been\ncalling on the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters to air a minimum\nof 3 hours of genuine educational programming a week. 3 hours a week -- 180 minutes a\nweek, about 2.5% of the entire schedule.\nSuch a requirement would halt a steep and troubling slide. In 1984, the 3 major networks\naired 11 hours a week of children's educational and informational shows: By 1990, they were\ndown to 2 hours a week. [WHAT NOW?]. The airwaves that broadcasters use belong to us\nall. In exchange for their use, broadcasters are required to serve the \"public interest.\" I\ncannot imagine anything that serves the public interest better than seeing to it that we give our\nchildren at least 3 hours of educational television a week.\nThat's why it gives me such pleasure to announce that the 4 major networks, the National\nAssociation of Broadcasters, and some of the leading advocates for educational television\nhave joined together to support the FCC's proposal for 3 hours of quality educational\nprogramming. Now all the FCC has to do is pass the measure, and the 3-hour rule will be the\nlaw of the land. Then we will prove in living color that the powerful medium of television\ncan be a tool to build young lives up rather than tear them down.\nWe have become too used to talking about television as a scourge it either fills our\nchildren's heads with bad values or vacuums out their best thoughts. Today, let us work to\nreimagine television as a force for good. Let us dare to imagine what children's television\nwould look like if it resembled what you all probably imagined it could be when you were\nchildren or when you first got started in this business.\nIn the last week, as families have gathered together to watch the Olympics, we have been\nreminded of all the good television can bring into our homes: It can bring us together. It can\ninspire and educate us. This must be our standard. Let's get to work.\n2\nDRAFT 7/26/96 6:00 P.M. VERSION B\nPRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON\nOPENING STATEMENT FOR CHILDREN'S PROGRAMMING SUMMIT\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nJULY 29, 1996\nWe gather here with a clear purpose: To improve and expand educational television for our\nchildren.\nI believe this is a positive and hopeful time an age of enormous possibility a chance for us\nto build a country and a world that is stronger and safer and more full of opportunity than\nany that existed before.\nOur success in the next century depends on building strong families today. In the State of the\nUnion, I challenged us to do everything in our power to strengthen our families to help our\nparents raise decent, responsible, well-educated children, committed to our basic values. That\nis why we have worked so hard to give American families more control over one of the most\ninfluential forces in our country: Television.\nTelevision is part of our landscape: A typical child watches 25,000 hours of television before\nhis or her 18th birthday. Preschoolers watch 28 hours of television a week -- Presidents,\nnearly that much.\nWe have dedicated ourselves to giving parents the power to screen out the television they\nknow their children should not see. I signed the V-Chip into law -- and now parents can stop\nprograms with explicit sexuality and violence from coming into their homes. You in-ther--\nentertainment industry did your part. Meeting in this very room 5 months ago, you\nvolunteered to rate shows for content. You came together as responsible corporate citizens to\ngive America's families an early-warning system; parents who use the V-Chip will now be\nable to block objectionable shows before it's too late. Together, these initiatives constitute an\ninvaluable arsenal for America's parents.\nBut that is only half the battle. As Americans, we do not define ourselves by what we stand\nagainst but by what we stand for. When we tear down the bad, we have never been content\nto leave just emptiness behind. We have always wanted to leave something beautiful in its\nplace.\nThat is what we must do today. With your help, we have made progress cleaning up the\ntelevision that is harmful to our children. Now we have the opportunity to use those same\nairwaves for something good: Educational programming that is as great as our kids are.\nTelevision can be a strong and positive force. It can help children learn to count, read, and\nthink. It can reinforce, rather than undermine, the values we work so hard to teach our\nchildren -- showing kids every day what it means to share, to respect themselves and others,\nto take responsibility for their actions, even to recognize that it's not easy being green.\n[Kermit the Frog.]\nSo this morning, I would like to hear from you about what we can do to broaden the\nspectrum of quality educational programming for children. I hope we can focus on 3 specific\nissues. First, I'd like to talk about the new research that shows how kids can learn valuable\nlessons from TV over the course of their young lifetimes. Second, I'd like to find out more\nabout what good shows look like. And third, I'd like us to talk about how we can break down\nthe barriers to the development and production of quality educational programming for\nchildren.\nBefore we begin, I want to mention one other issue that is of great concern to all of us in\nthis room and to families across the country. Not only must we create better\nprogramming -- we must see to it that it gets on the air. For the past year, I have been\ncalling on the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters to air a\nminimum of 3 hours of genuine educational programming a week. 3 hours a week --- 180\nminutes a week, about 2.5% of the entire schedule.\nSuch a requirement would halt a steep and troubling slide. In 1984, the 3 major\nnetworks aired 11 hours a week of children's educational and informational shows. By\n1990, they were down to 2 hours a week. [WHAT NOW?]. The airwaves that\nbroadcasters use belong to us all. In exchange for their use, broadcasters are required to\nserve the \"public interest.\" I cannot imagine anything that serves the public interest\nbetter than seeing to it that we give our children at least 3 hours of educational television\na week.\nThat's why I am SO disappointed that the FCC has not moved to make the 3-hour rule\nthe law of the land. Seeing to it that our children have quality, educational TV is an\nurgent need that we dare not carry out in slow motion. I urge the FCC to pass the 3-\nhour rule. Then we will prove in living color that the powerful medium of television can\nbe a tool to build young lives up rather than tear them down.\nWe have become too used to talking about television as a scourge -- it either fills our\nchildren's heads with bad values or vacuums out their best thoughts. Today, let us work to\nreimagine television as a force for good. Let us dare to imagine what children's television\nwould look like if it resembled what you all probably imagined it could be when you were\nchildren or when you first got started in this business.\nIn the last week, as families have gathered together to watch the Olympics, we have been\nreminded of all the good television can bring into our homes. It can bring us together. It can\ninspire and educate us. This must be our standard. Let's get to work.\n2\nWHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE ON CHILDREN'S TV\nSCRIPT\nI.\nOPENING STATEMENT (standing at lectern)\nTHE PRESIDENT (Prepared remarks from David Shipley)\nII.\nINFLUENCE OF TELEVISION ON CHILDREN\nTHE PRESIDENT INTRODUCES MRS. CLINTON.\nMRS. CLINTON (Prepared remarks from Melanne Verveer)\nMRS. CLINTON INTRODUCES DR. ALETHA HUSTON:\nThere is a growing body of information about the positive influence of\ntelevision. We are fortunate this morning to have with us Dr. Aletha\nHuston, the co-author of the most recent of these studies. Dr. Huston\nand her husband, Dr. John Wright, are Directors of the Center for\nResearch on the Influences of Television on Children at the University of\nKansas.\nDr. Huston, you have been studying television and children for years,\nand your early studies confirmed what many of us experience in our\nown homes -- that educational programs help prepare preschool\nchildren for school. What findings from this most recent study do you\nthink would be of greatest interest to parents?\nDr. Huston's presentation.\n[Huston has conducted research on television and children\nsince 1970, when she carried out a ground-breaking field\nexperiment investigating the effects of pro-social television and\nviolent programs for the Surgeon General's Scientific Advisory\nCommittee on Television and Social Behavior.]\n1\nMRS. CLINTON POSES A QUESTION TO DR. PHILLIPS:\nThis study tells us that children do learn from television, but it might be\nhelpful to understand why they learn. Dr. Robert Phillips from the\nAmerican Psychiatric Association is with us, and at earlier discussions\non this topic I have been struck by his insights into the power of\ntelevision on children. Dr. Phillips, can you explain why the television\ncan be such a powerful teaching tool?\nDr. Robert Phillips responds.\nMRS. CLINTON POSES A QUESTION TO KATHLEEN HALL\nJAMIESON:\nAnother recent study that shed new light on the state of children's\ntelevision was conducted by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the\nUniversity of Pennsylvania under the direction of Kathleen Hall\nJamieson. In addition, Dr. Jamieson recently announced the creation of\na blue ribbon group to review programs designed for children and to\nidentify those that do the best job.\nKathleen, you are immersed in this issue, what new information on the-\npositive influence of television do you find most surprising?\nKathleen Hall Jamieson responds.\n[Jamieson is a Professor of Communications and Dean of the\nAnnenberg School for Communications at the University of\nPennsylvania. She worked with Peggy Charren to propose an\nAnnenberg Blue Ribbon Commission to judge the quality of\nchildren's educational programs; the Vice President attended\ntheir press conference announcing this Commission. The\npremise of the Commission is that with a respected independent\nthird party involved, parents will be able to get information\nabout program quality, and the FCC can rely on experts and\nindependent sources to determine whether programs are truly\neducational.]\n2\nMRS. CLINTON POSES A QUESTION TO JACK VALENTI:\nIn February, Jack Valenti announced an industry initiative to rate\ntelevision shows to help parents guide their children's viewing habits.\nJack, can you give us an update on that project?\nJack Valenti responds.\n2.5\nMRS. CLINTON OPENS THE DISCUSSION. Suggested individuals to\ncall on:\nMargaret Loesch, President, FOX Children's Network\n[Margaret Loesch is the founding President of Fox Children's\nNetwork. Loesch handpicked such shows as \"X-Men,\"\n\"Goosebumps,\" the Emmy-Award winning \"Where in the World\nis Carmen San Diego,\" and \"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers.\"\nLoesch was responsible for the roll-out of the Cub House\nchildren's educational programming block each weekday at\n8:30 am on FOX. This was the first weekday educational\nprogramming on any network since \"Captain Kangaroo\" went\noff the air. The average FOX affiliate shows an average of 4\nhours a week of educational kids programming.]\nDr. Alvin Poussaint, Professor of Psychiatry, Judge Baker Children's\nCenter.\n[Dr. Poussaint is the Director of the Media Center for Children\nat the Judge Baker Children's Center. He also was a consultant\nto the Cosby Show.]\nMRS. CLINTON OPENS THE DISCUSSION TO ALL\nPARTICIPANTS:\nTHE PRESIDENT CONCLUDES THE DISCUSSION:\nTalking Points:\n0 We have been reminded today that television can just as readily\nbe a powerful positive force in our culture as it can be a negative\nforce.\no As parents, and citizens, we need to act accordingly and make\nsure that we harness that force in ways that contribute to the\ndevelopment of our children.\n3\nIII. WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN'S TELEVISION\nPROGRAM?\nTHE PRESIDENT INTRODUCES MRS. GORE.\nMRS. GORE (Prepared remarks from Skila Harris)\nMRS. GORE POSES A QUESTION TO BILL COSBY:\nThere is no one who's had more success in television than Bill Cosby. So\nI naturally want to go directly to him and ask a simple question: How\ndo you make us love you so much?\nBill Cosby responds\nMRS. GORE OPENS THE DISCUSSION by asking others why their\nprograms have been successful. Suggested individuals to call on:\nBill Nye the Science Guy: One of the most popular shows at our\nhouse is all about science. We don't just watch it, we get all the\nequipment and re-create the experiments. But everyone knows the\nVice President loves science. Oh yes the children watch it too.\n[In three seasons Nye's show has been awarded two 1996\nDaytime Emmy Awards, two Silver Apple Awards, three\nParent's Choice Awards (1993, 1994, 1995), an Environmental\nMedia Award, and a National Education Association Award.\nThe show got started with funding from the National Science\nFoundation and now has funding from Buena Vista Television\n(Disney) and the Seattle public television station. Here in DC it\nis carried at 6 a.m. on channel 50 (Warner Brothers) and on\ntwo public television stations.]\n4\nLeVar Burton: Every parent knows the joy of reading to a child.\nLeVar Burton knows the joy of reading to thousands of children in the\nwonderful program \"Reading Rainbow.\" Those who know him only\nfrom \"Star Trek\" need to know he is not just worried about the future\nof the universe, he is devoted to enhancing the future of children.\n[LeVar Burton, who is best known for his role as Lt.\nCommander Geordi LaForge on the TV series \"Star Trek: The\nNext Generation,\" is also the host and co-executive producer of\nthe PBS series \"Reading Rainbow.\" The show introduces\nchildren to the world of reading and books. In February,\nPresident Clinton nominated Burton to the U. S. National\nCommission on Libraries and Information Science, which\nadvises the White House and Congress on domestic and foreign\nlibrary and information services, policies, and plans. Burton\nwas a board member of the National Endowment for Children's\nEducational Television created by the Children's Television Act,\nwhich did not receive funding over the last two years by\nCongress.]\nMr. Fred Rogers: One face every child knows and loves is their best\nfriend in the neighborhood -- Mr. Rogers.\nDavid Kleeman, Executive Director of the American Center for\nChildren's Television.\n[Kleeman is involved with selecting the winner of the Ollie\nAward for excellence in children's programming. His\norganization has specific criteria for what it considers to be a\n\"successful\" children's program. In 1995 Kleeman was\nappointed by the Secretary of Commerce to the National\nAdvisory Council on Children's Educational Television. He is\nthe co-founder of the World Alliance of Television for\nChildren.]\nGeraldine Laybourne: One of the most successful developers of\nchildren's educational programs is Geraldine Laybourne, who made\nNickelodeon a leader in children's television. ABC/Disney had the\ngood sense to hire her.\n5\n[Laybourne was named President of Disney/ABC Cable\nNetworks in late 1995, after spending fifteen years with\nNickelodeon. One of the hallmarks of her tenure at Nickelodeon\nwas the inclusion of children in focus groups when planning\nnew shows. Laybourne recently called on advertisers to set\naside 10% of their ad budgets for educational shows. She has\nbeen praised for successfully introducing positive female TV\ncharacters.]\nGary Chapman - President & CEO, LIN TV. LIN TV is a partner in\n\"Bill Nye the Science Guy.\" As an owner of local stations, he has a\nunique view of what it takes to make a successful program.\nDavid Britt - President and Chief Executive Officer of Children's\nTelevision Workshop (CTW). CTW produces \"Sesame Street.\"\nPeggy Charren, founder of Action for Children's Television and a\nleading children's TV advocate. Her view of what a successful\nprogram is reflects the advocates' perspective.\nTHE PRESIDENT CLOSES THE DISCUSSION:\nTalking Points:\no Success is in the eye of the beholder. Success can mean a show is\nprofitable, that it teaches children, that it is a good merchandising\nvehicle or that it's renewed for another season.\no All parties need to understand each others meaning of success\nand work to embrace as many of the various components as\npossible.\nIV. BARRIERS TO MORE AND BETTER CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS\nTHE PRESIDENT INTRODUCES THE VICE PRESIDENT\n6\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT:\nWe know from the study released here today that educational television\ncan help children learn. And we know from the successes described here\ntoday that we all know good children's programming when we see it.\nThe question for this last discussion is: Why don't see more of it? What\nare the barriers to the development and production of more and better\nchildren's educational programming, and how do we overcome them?\nLinda Ellerbee has built a career on taking on hard issues. Her show\n\"Nick News\" provides youth with a different view of the world -- but\nI'm sure if it were easy to do, she wouldn't be doing it.\nLinda Ellerbee responds.\n[Ellerbee's production company, Lucky Duck Productions, has\nearned the reputation as an supplier of outstanding children's\nprogramming through the TV news and documentary series,\n\"Nick News,' which Ellerbee produces, writes, and hosts. The\nseries has dealt with topics as diverse as the conflict in Bosnia,\ntoy guns, domestic violence, and immigration.]\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT CALLS ON JAMIE KELLNER:\nWe're pleased to have here today Jamie Kellner, the CEO of Warner\nBrothers Television Network. Mr. Kellner and Warner Brothers are\nactively pursuing the family program market -- and something tells me\nthey're not doing it to lose money or viewers.\nJamie Kellner responds.\n[\"Kids' WB!\" has rapidly become the second most popular\nbroadcast children's network, carrying programs like Steven\nSpielberg's Emmy-winning \"Animaniacs.\"]\n7\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT CALLS ON JIM STEYER:\nJust in the last week, J.P. Kids announced a major deal with the\nNational Association of Broadcasters to produce a 30-minute children's\nmagazine show. I would like to ask James Steyer, Founder and CEO, to\ndiscuss how this came about. (Jim was a panelist at the last year's Family\nConference.)\nJim Steyer responds.\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT OPENS THE DISCUSSION. Suggested\nindividuals to call on:\nJudith McHale, President and Chief Operating Officer of Discovery\nCommunications.\nRich Frank, President of the Academy of Television Arts and\nSciences and the chairman and CEO of C3, a company that he created\nwith cable television/telecommunications giant Comcast Corporation.\n[Frank established the Academy's \"Campaign Against\nSubstance Abuse, which dramatically changed the portrayal of\ndrug use in television programming, and he participated in the\n1988 White House Conference for a Drug Free America. Frank\nmade a dramatic speech at a recent National Association of\nBroadcasters convention calling on this fellow television\nindustry players to make a stronger commitment to children's\ntelevision. He supports the three hour minimum.]\nVicky Rideout, Director of the Children and the Media Program at\nChildren Now. They recently hosted a meeting to address the quality\nof children's programming that specifically addressed the role of\nadvertisers.\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT ENDS THE DISCUSSION.\n8\nV.\nCLOSING REMARKS (seated)\nTHE PRESIDENT\n9\nWithdrawal/Redaction Marker\nClinton Library\nDOCUMENT NO.\nSUBJECT/TITLE\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nAND TYPE\n002. memo\nGreg Simon to President Clinton, re: White House Conference on\n7/29/1996\nP5\nChildren's Television (3 pages)\nCOLLECTION:\nClinton Presidential Records\nFirst Lady's Office\nMelanne Verveer (Early Childhood Development Issue Binders)\nOA/Box Number: 19012\nFOLDER TITLE:\nEarly Childhood Development #1: Early Childhood Development [3]\n2006-0198-F\nwr730\nRESTRICTION CODES\nPresidential Records Act - [44 U.S.C. 2204(a)]\nFreedom of Information Act - [5 U.S.C. 552(b)]\nP1 National Security Classified Information [(a)(1) of the PRA]\nb(1) National security classified information [(b)(1) of the FOIA]\nP2 Relating to the appointment to Federal office [(a)(2) of the PRAJ\nb(2) Release would disclose internal personnel rules and practices of\nP3 Release would violate a Federal statute [(a)(3) of the PRAJ\nan agency [(b)(2) of the FOIA]\nP4 Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nb(3) Release would violate a Federal statute [(b)(3) of the FOIA]\nfinancial information [(a)(4) of the PRA]\nb(4) Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential or financial\nP5 Release would disclose confidential advice between the President\ninformation [(b)(4) of the FOIA]\nand his advisors, or between such advisors [a)(5) of the PRA]\nb(6) Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\nP6 Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of\npersonal privacy [(b)(6) of the FOIA]\npersonal privacy [(a)(6) of the PRAJ\nb(7) Release would disclose information compiled for law enforcement\npurposes [(b)(7) of the FOIA]\nC. Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in donor's deed\nb(8) Release would disclose information concerning the regulation of\nof gift.\nfinancial institutions [(b)(8) of the FOIA]\nPRM. Personal record misfile defined in accordance with 44 U.S.C.\nb(9) Release would disclose geological or geophysical information\n2201(3).\nconcerning wells [(b)(9) of the FOIA]\nRR. Document will be reviewed upon request.\n1\nQUESTIONS ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION\nQ:\nWhen will the FCC make a decision on this issue?\nA:\nThe FCC could adopt the proposed compromise at its earliest business meeting. Those\nare currently scheduled for August 1st and August 8th.\nQ:\nIf Congress, in passing the Act, did not require a specific number of hours of\neducational programming, why should the FCC mandate a number?\nA:\nThe Act did not require a minimum number in statute, but it did not preclude the FCC\nfrom setting a minimum number as a way to enforce the Act.\nThe lack of clear guidelines is leading to a lack of compliance with the act. The clear\nguidelines for commercial time limits has resulted in greater than 90% compliance with those\nlimits. In addition, broadcasters, including the association of independent broadcasters (INTV)\nhave argued that greater certainty is needed. INTV recommended a minimum of 2 hours a week.\nQ:\nWhy three hours a week?\nA:\nThe Administration is recommending a minimum of 3 hours - and preferably more -- a\nweek of programming specifically designed to educate. We hope that most broadcasters will air\nmore than 3 hours a week of educational programming.\nAlthough the NAB has testified that the average station airs 3.5 hours a week, many of\nthese hours are filled with shows that are primarily entertainment programs rather than programs\nspecifically designed to educate children.\nWe feel that 3 hours should be an absolute minimum, and hope that many broadcasters do\nmore.\nQ:\nDoes educational programming actually make a difference? Why is it important?\nA:\nMost parents know very well that their children learn from television. But studies over\nthe years have found that educational programming contributes to children's success in school.\nA recent study conducted at the University of Kansas found that half an hour a day of\nviewing educational programming had a positive impact on children's learning.\nQ:\nWhat kinds of programs do you think are educational?\nA:\nThe Act states that educational programs can promote cognitive or social development.\nThe key is whether the program was designed primarily with education in mind, or whether the\nprogram is primarily designed to entertain.\n5\nMost people are familiar with the more than 6 hours of educational programming every\nday on PBS. Much of that programming is definitely entertaining, but its primary purpose is to\neducate. Of course entertainment is required to keep kids attention, but the overall design, as\nin \"Sesame Street\" or \"Cro,\" which used to be on ABC, is to get across an educational concept.\nIf you ask someone at \"Sesame Street\" what they are trying to teach, they can easily tell\nyou, and it passes the laugh test. \"The Jetsons\" teaching about life in the 21st century does not. I\nthink that is a good test.\nQ:\nThere are a lot of new children's programs on. Aren't broadcasters complying with\nthis law voluntarily? Why a mandate or quota?\nA:\nThe FCC in its inquiry beginning March 1993 found that there had not been any\nsignificant change in the amount of educational children's programming. Take a look at the TV\nlistings for today in Washington. Its almost impossible to find a single educational children's\nprogram on a commercial station during the entire day. That is not serving the public. That is a\nfailure to meet their obligations to children under the law.\nEffects of Early Childhood Media Use on Adolescent Achievement\nA report by the staffs of the \"Recontact\" Project:\nAt the University of Massachusetts, Amherst:\nAt the University of Kansas, Lawrence:\nDaniel R Anderson, PhD.\nAletha C. Huston, Ph.D.\nPatricia A. Collins, Ph.D.\nJohn C. Wright, Ph.D.\nKelly L. Schmitt, M.S.\nElizabeth McElroy, M.A.\nDeborah L. Linebarger, M.S.Ed.\nThe authors acknowledge the generous support of the Markle Foundation of New York City, and its\nPresident, Lloyd N. Morrisett We are especially grateful to the more than 570 young people and their\nfamilies in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Topeka, Kansas, who participated in this research both as\npreschool children, and much later as adolescents.\nI\nExecutive Summary\nTwo groups of preschoolers were observed in separate studies during the early 1980s -\none in Massachusetts and one in Kansas. In 1994, when they were 15 to 18 years old, these\nyoung people were interviewed, and their high school transcripts were obtained. One major\npurpose was to determine whether early viewing of educational television programs predicted\nlater academic achievement.\nThe results support the hypothesis that curriculum-based child informative programs\ncontribute to children's educational development. We call this the Early Learning model of TV\neffects. With statistical controls for parents' education, viewing of child informative programs\nduring preschool was positively related to high school academic achievement, academic self\nconcept, and the value the participants placed on academic attainment.\nThe results contradict the popular notion that preschool exposure to rapidly paced\nprogramming (especially Sesame Street) leads to reduced attention span and consequently to\npoor academic achievement, and disinterest in such activities as book reading. Sesame Street\nviewing was positively associated with academic achievement and book reading.\nThe findings also contradict the hypothesis that attractively produced children's\neducational television leads to an inattention to language and hence to poor language skills.\nSesame Street viewing was positively related to preschool vocabulary and to a high school\ngrades in English\nViewing educational television in preschool appears to contribute to children's academic\nperformance many years later. It is obvious that the content learned at age 5 cannot influence\nhigh school performance directly. Instead, a rich diet of educational television may help children\nto enter school with the academic skills required for the tasks they encounter, increasing the\nlikelihood of early success. They may also have higher expectations for themselves and make a\ncorrespondingly greater investment of time and effort toward mastery of the knowledge and\nskills taught in school. Teachers may view such children as good students and offer them\nSummary of The Impact of the Children's Television ACI\nThis study examines the response of the television market to the Children's Television\nAct of 1990, in order to identify institutional, economic and attitudinal barriers to\nsuccessful implementation of the law. Findings are based on interviews with\nproducers, broadcasters, distributors and network executives involved in what the\nindustry defines as educational programming. The interviews display definite patterns\nin promotion, production and scheduling for \"FCC friendly\" programs. Children's\ntelevision often receives low budgets, inadequate promotion, and pre- dawn\nscheduling. This trend is particularly severe in the syndicated television market,\nmaking it impossible for high quality kids programming to really gain a foothold in\nthe market. This study also concludes that regulation can help especially when\nfollowed by firm threat of enforcement. The Center for Media Education urges the\nFederal Communications Commission to adopt clearer and stronger regulations\ndefining and protecting children's programming.\ncondensed from- The Impact of the Children's Television Act on the Broadcasting Market.\nby Patricia Aufderheide, Ph. D. and Kathryn Montgomery, Ph.D. (in attendance). Center for\nMedia Education.\nSummary of Children Watching Television\nThis report was a direct result of the May 1996 Children Now conference and\nexpresses the need for advertisers and programmers to work together in favor of\nimproved children's programming. They believe Congress should increase the amount\nof commercials permitted during educational programs by one minute per hour. Other\nsuggestions include the idea that companies should use their financial weight to push\npositive programming into quality time slots, as well as development of a ratings\nsystem, separate from the Nielsen system, specifically for children's programming.\nEndorsement for a Children Now \"seal of approval\" on quality television was wide\nspread. Other opinions expressed were the fact that advertisers and networks should\nwork together to give educational programming a complete makeover, including\nincreased promotion for children's shows and network self- regulation for ad buying\nduring educational programming.\ncondensed from- Children Watching Television: The Role of Advertisers. report by Children\nNow. suprevised by Director Vicky Rideout (in attendance). July 1996.\nSummary of Making Television Ratings Work\nThis report suggests rating systems designed for television, should not only apply to\nthe age appropriateness of the program, but also to specific categories of advisories\n(i.e. sexual content, violence or adult language) maximizing the information available\nto parents. The report states that other than sports and hard news, all television\nprogramming should be rated and that those ratings must be more specifically age\nbased than the current movie rating system; in addition, unlike the movie ratings,\ntelevision ratings should be based on scientific data available from child development\nstudies. Rating information must be published in a format easily accessible to parents\nin order to guarantee the success of a television rating system.\ncondensed from- Making Television Ratings Work for Children and Families. report by\nChildren Now. supervised by Director Vicky Rideout (in attendance). June 1996.\nSummary of UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report\nThis report monitors television programming for inappropriate violent content and\nmakes recommendations to the industry, the government, the schools, the parents\nand even the children about protecting kids from unnecessary exposure to violent\nprogramming. Primarily, they express the opinion that everyone is responsible for\nensuring improvement in children's programming.\nThe study reports that violent television programming should only be aired after the\neight o' clock hour or later, and promotions for this specific type of programming\nshould not be aired during children's television shows. They also suggest that any\ntheatrical movies containing 30- 50 scenes of violence or more and that television\nmovies based on violent crimes should be eliminated from the programming schedule.\nAdvisories need to be applied properly and regularly to this type of programming and\nnetworks should be responsible for creating commissions to enforce proper advisory\nnotices for all violent programming. In conclusion, the Center calls on the\ngovernment to present a unified front when attempting the regulate or deal with the\ntelevision industry.\ncondensed from- UCLA Television Violence Monitoring Report. report by UCLA Center for\nCommunications Policy. supervised by Director Jeffrey Cole. September 1995.\nSummary of Quality Time?\nThe Task Force feels that public television must be re- invented to serve the public\nproperly. Their report concludes that the mission of public television should be to\nenrich and strengthen American society by reinforcing our basic societal values. They\nbelieve the system of public television needs a large fundamental structural change\nincluding the elimination of federal funding for local stations. The Task Force\nbelieves federal funding should be put towards national programming and that\nindividual stations should be supported by their communities. If federal funding was\nearmarked for national programming, then the Task Force would like to see the\namount allotted raised and the source of the funding coming from non- taxpayer\nsources (i.e. spectrum auctions and spectrum usage fees). Educational programming\nmust be expanded, while commercialization is cut back; delivery and dissemination of\nthis quality programming must be upgraded as well. The Task Force is also of the\nopinion that the selection process for the Corporation Public Broadcasting board\nmembers must be improved by removing the process from political influence.\ncondensed from- Quality Time? report by The Twentieth Century Fund Task Force on Public\nTelevision. 1993.\nQ: If Congress, in passing the Act, did not require a specific\nnumber of hours of educational programming, why should the FCC\nmandate a number?\nA:\nThe Act did not require a minimum numberin statute, but it\ndid not preclude the FCC from setting a minimum number as a way\nto enforce the Act.\nClearly, the lack of clear guidelines is leading to a lack\nof compliance with the act. The clear guidelines for commercial\ntimelimits has resulted in greater than 90% compliance with those\nlimits. In addition, broadcasters, including the association of\nindependent broadcasters (INTV) have argued that greater\ncertainty is needed. INTV recommended a minimum of 2 hours a\nweek.\nQ; The NAB says that the Act specifically prohibits a minimum\nrequirement for childrens educational programming.\nA: The Act makes it clear that Congress is not setting a\nminimum number of hours by statute. It does not preclude the FCC\nfrom setting a minimum number of hours.\nQ: Why three hours a week?\nThe Administration is recommending a minimum of 3 hours a\nweek, and preferably more, of programming specifically designed\nto educate. We hope that most broadcasters will air more than 3\nhours a week of educational programming.\nAlthough the NAB has testified that the average station airs\n3.5 hours a week, many of these hours are filled with shows that\nare primarily entertainment programs rather than programs\nspecifically designed to educate children.\nWe feel that 3 hours should be an absolute minimum, and hope\nthat many broadcasters do more.\nQ: Does educational programming actually make a difference?\nWhy is it important?\nMost parents know very well that their chidlren learn from\ntelevision But studies over the years have found that\neducational programming contributes to children's success, in\nschool\nA recent study conducted at the University of Kansas found\nthat half an hour a day of viewing educational programming had a\npositive impact on children's learning.\nWhat kinds of programs do you think are educational?\nThe Act states that educational programs can promote\ncognitive or social development. The key is whether the program\nwas designed primarily with education in mind, or whether the\nprogram is primarily designed to entertain.\nMost people are familiar with the more than 6 hours of\neducational programming every day on PBS. Much of that\nprogramming is definitely entertaining, but its primary purpose\nis to educate. Of course entertainment is required to keep kids\nattention, but the overall design, as in Sesame Street or Cro\nthat used to be on ABC, is to get across an educational concept.\nIf you ask someone at Sesame Street what they are trying to\nteach, they can easily tell you, and it passes the laugh test.\nThe Jetsons teaching about life in the 21st century does not. I\nthink that is a good test.\nThere are alot of new children's programs on. Aren't\nbroadcasters complying with this law voluntarily? Why a mandate\nor quota?\nThe FCC in its inquiry beginning March 1993 found that there\nhad not been any significant change in the amount of educational\nchildren's programming. Take a look at the TV listings for today\nin Washington. Its almost impossible to find a single\neducational children's program on a commercial station during the\nentire day. That is not serving the public. That is a failure\nto meet their obligations to children under the law.\nDoesn't FOX have a half hour a day of educational programming?\nThis year, for the first time since the 1970's, a network\nhas on educational children's programming during the week. FOX\nhas made a commitment to children with this programming. It is\nnot on every affiliate, for example, it is not on in Washington,\nand that's too bad But there daily programming, where it is on,\nis a great commitment to children.\nHow much educational programming do ABC, NBC and CBS have on for\nkids?\nOf course the olbligation is on the station license holder\nnot the network.\nABC used to have Cro - but they replaced it with Dumb and\nDumber. NBC has Saved by the Bell and California Dreaming. CBS\nhas the Little Mermaid and Its Your Adventure that's a great\nshow. Some of these programs are stretching the definition of\neducational.\nHISTORY\nThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) began regulating\nchildren's programming in 1960. In 1984, the FCC eliminated\nregulations governing children's programming that had been\nadopted over the years. Specifically, the FCC issued a broadcast\nderegulation order repealing many policies pertaining to both\nprogramming and advertising practices.\nTelevision licensees were relieved of requirements to\nmaintain program logs open to the public and to ascertain the\nprogram needs of their local community. Arguing that\n\"marketplace forces can better determine appropriate commercial\nlevels than our own rules,\" the FCC dropped long-standing\ncommercial time guidelines, including guidelines for children's\ntelevision.\nIn June, 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit)\nruled that the FCC had not justified sufficiently its repeal of\nadvertising guidelines for children's television and ordered the\nFCC to review its decision. (Action for Children's Television y\nFCC, 821 F.2d 741, 744 (1987) )\nIn response to the remand, the FCC issued a Further Notice\nof Proposed Rulemaking/Notice of Inquiry in 1987 seeking comments\non the issue of commercialization guidelines for children's\ntelevision Although comments were filed by numerous parties, no\nFCC action was taken.\nWhy did the Act pass?\nCongress reacted to the FCC deregulation and lack of action\non children's commercial guidelines by passing a Chidlren\"s\nTelevision Act in 1989. It was vetoed by President Reagan.\nI'n 1990 Congress enacted the Children's Television Act.\nNoting the profound influence of television on children and the\nlimited number of educational programs for children, Congress\nconcluded that television broadcasters needed to do better in\nproviding positive informational programs for children. A report\nby Squire Rushnell, former vice president for children's programs\nat ABC-TV, found that the availability of educational programs\nfor children had gone from approximately 11 hours per week on the\naverage network in 1980, prior to deregulation, to approximately\n1.5 hours per week in 1990.\nIn addition, Congress was concerned about the over-\ncommercialization of children's television -- essentially,\nprograms that were really half hour commercials for toys.\nWhat were the requirements of the Act?\nThe Act contained the following two major provisions:\n1) reinstatement of commercial time limits during children's\nprogramming to not more than 10.5 minutes/hour on weekends\nand not more, than 12 minutes/hour on weekdays.\n2) a requirement that commercial television broadcast\nlicensees, as part of their public interest obligations,\nmeet the educational and informational needs of the child\naudience through their overall programming as well as\nthrough programming specifically designed to meet the\neducational and informational needs of children.\nWhat was the purpose of the Act?\nThe Act was designed to increase the amount of educational\nand informational television programming available to children\nand to protect children from over-commercialization of\nprogramming. In passing the Act, Congress noted that children's\nprogramming then consisted primarily of reruns of adult or family\ncomedy, variety or dramatic programs. In addition, on average,\neach of the networks aired an after-school special one day a\nmonth during the school year and independent stations tended to\noffer programs to children during the week that consisted of\nanimated cartoons, often with commercials for toys based on the\nprogram's characters associated with them.\nThe Act required licensees to demonstrate at renewal how\nthey have served the educational and informational needs of\nchildren, including serving their cognitive/intellectual or\nsocial/emotional needs Congress suggested that examples of\neducational or informational shows might include programs like\n\"Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids\" which dealt in a meaningful way\nfor children with issues such as drugs, divorce, friendship and\nchild abuse.\nThe Act also required the FCC to complete its\nRulemaking/Notice of Inquiry initiated in 1987 on program length\ncommercials. The FCC was directed to consider the cognitive\nabilities of children in requiring sponsorship identification for\nchildren's broadcast material. The Act directed that commercials\nshould be clearly separate from programs for children and that\nsponsorship identification must be presented in a manner\nreasonably designed to assist children in understanding it.\nOn April 12, 1991, the FCC issued a Report and Order\ndefining a \"program length commercial\" as \"a program associated\nwith a product, in which commercials for that product area\naired.' The FCC stated that this distinction between programs\nand commercials in the form of programs = directly addresses a\nfundamental regulatory concern, that children who have difficulty\nenough distinguishing program content from unrelated commercial\nmatter, not be all the more confused by a show that interweaves\nprogram content and commercial matter.' Program length\ncommercials directed at the child audience are not permitted\nunder the order.\nHow did broadcasters respond to the passage of the Act?\nBroadcasters have testified that the average station now\ncarries 3.5 hours every week of children educational\nprogramming. Some of the network programs that are listed as\neducational include: Cro on ABC - recently replaced with Dumb and\nDumber; NBC - Saved by the Bell, (some activists argue that this\nprogram is not designed to educate) i CBS - Little Mermaid - some\nactivists argue this is not primarily educational, CBS argues it\nteaches women to be independent; FOX - half hour every morning of\nCubHouse that most people agree is educational. Not every\naffilaite carries it, for example, DC affiliate does not.\nWhat do activists say?\nIn September of 1992, the Center for Media Education (CME)\nreleased a study of stations' compliance with the Act. The study\nfocused on what broadcasters submitted as programming\nspecifically designed to meet the educational and informational\nneeds of children. It contained three major findings:\nentertainment shows such as the Jetsons or Yo Yoai were\nbeing submitted as educational programming\n*\nvery few new programs for kids had been created since\npassage of the Act\n*\nthe few new programs often were aired at times\ninaccessible to children\nThe CME study concluded that rather than add new programming\ndesigned to serve the educational and informational needs of\nchildren, many stations had simply redefined their existing\nchildren's programming as educational.\nThe study further concluded that those few stations that had\ncreated new educational programming generally were airing those\nprograms at times inaccessible to the child audience. According\nto CME, nearly 60% of new programming developed to comply with\nthe Act was scheduled between 5:30 and 7:00 a.m.\nFinally, the CME study concluded that the FCC's reporting\nrequirements allowed stations to combine shows that contain some\nelements of educational material, but that are primarily designed\nto entertain, with their listing of programs specifically\ndesigned to meet the educational needs of children. The\nreporting requirements also permitted stations to list programs\ndesigned for adults if they contained any information of interest\nto children, such as a Donahue program with teen-age guests that\naired at 10:00 a.m. when kids were in school.\nThe CME suggested that FCC reporting requirements be revised\nto require that programs \"specifically designed to meet the\neducational and informational needs of children\" are listed\nseparately from those programs that may contain educational\ninformation, but are designed primarily to entertain. CME\nfurther suggested that adult programs of interest to children\nshould be listed separately from programming specifically\ntargeted at the child audience.\nDid the FCC in its inquiry find that broadcasters were complying\nwith the Act?\nOn March 2, 1993, the FCC released a Notice of Inquiry\n(Notice) to examine whether stations were complying with the Act\nand whether reporting requirements should be changed to increase\ncompliance with the law That notice was followed by an NPRM\nwhich is pending\nIn the Notice, the Commission reported that broadcasters are\nin substantial compliance with the commercial time limits\nrequired under the Act. Specifically, the Commission noted that\na January, 1992 field audit reviewing broadcaster and cable\nadvertising practices found compliance rates exceeding 90\npercent.\nOn the other hand, the Commission found that there had been\nvirtually no response to the Act's requirements that stations\nprovide educational programming, and that recent renewal\napplications show little change in available programming that\naddresses the needs of the child audience. The Commission noted:\n* The number of hours and the time slots devoted to\nchildren's programming do not appear to have substantially\nchanged. Further, with few exceptions, the educational and\ninformational programming broadcast appears to be those same\nfew programs set forth in the legislative history for\nillustrative purposes.\n*\nMoreover, while practically all licensees filing renewal\napplications in the current renewal cycle have identified\nsome regularly scheduled, standard-length children's\nprogramming aired during their license term, the amount of\nsuch programming is, in some cases, very limited. Many of\nthese licensees place substantial reliance on short-segment\nvignettes and public service announcements to satisfy their\n[Children's Television Act] obligations.\nIn this review, the FCC found that while stations were\nnominally complying with regulations governing children's\nprogramming, there had been virtually no change in the amount or\ntype of children's programming since passage of the Children's\nTelevision Act The FCC stated that the level of performance of\nbroadcasters was not, in the long term, consistent with the\nobjectives of the Act. The Commission stated, however, that it\ndid not attribute broadcaster performance to an unwillingness to\ncomply or any intentional disregard for their responsibilities.\nRather, the Commission suggested, broadcasters may remain\nuncertain as to the scope of their programming obligations.\nThe Commission stated its belief that broadcasters should\nplace their primary reliance in establishing compliance with the\nAct on standard length programming that is specifically designed\nto serve the educational and informational needs of children.\nThe Commission further stated that broadcasters should \"focus on\nprogramming that has as its explicit purpose service to the\neducational and informational needs of children, with the\nimplicit purpose of entertainment, rather than the converse !!\nThe Commission sought comment on whether, to provide clearer\nguidance to licensees, it may be appropriate to adopt staff\nprocessing guidelines specifying an amount and type of children's\nprogramming that would facilitate the review of license renewal\napplications\nExcerpted Statements regarding Children's Television\nPresident Clinton\nJuly 18, 1996 (Remarks By The President At Ceremony For Boys And Girls Nation)\nThis month we're challenging members of the entertainment industry who have done a\ngreat job on this rating to come to the White House to talk about improving the quality\nand quantity of children's programming. So the industry is doing it's part.\nThe truth is that what we need now is for the government to do it's part. The Federal\nCommunications Commission has had before it for a long time now a measure that would\nrequire broadcasters to put a minimum of three hours a week of quality educational\nchildren's programming on\nIt's less than two percent of the nation's air time.\nThe initiative is stalled, and some people have opposed it. But the airwaves clearly,\nunder our law, are designed to promote the public interest. I can't imagine anything we\ncould do that would better promote it than to put more quality educational programming\nfor children on television. So I'd like to ask all of you to support that. And I hope very\nmuch that the Federal Communications Commission will finally act on it.\nJune 11, 1996 (Remarks By The President To The Community Of Glendale)\n\"And today, I want to formally reissue an invitation to the people from the entertainment\nindustry involved in television to come back to the White House before the end of July\nto discuss that. If we can control, by ratings, give parents the power to deal with what\ntheir children are watching on television, surely, surely, we can agree to increase the\ncontent of children's television that goes to education.\"\nSaturday, March 2, 1996 (Radio Address By The President To The Nation)\nLike the movie ratings have done for 27 years, the ratings for television will help parents\nto guide their children's entertainment choices. The system will provide families with a\nstandard they can rely on from show to show, from channel to channel. Parents are the\nbest judges of what their children should and shouldn't see, and this new rating system\nwill help them to make those critical judgments. The best programming director for our\nchildren is a parent.\nAt my meeting with the entertainment industry, we also discussed the need for more\nprogramming that is suitable for children, and that is educational and attractive to them. I\nwant to preserve public broadcasting and the innovation it has brought in educational\nshows for children We take the Children's Television Act seriously. We want to\ncontinue to work with the industry to do the very best we can for our children in both\nquantity and quality of children's programming.\nJanuary 23, 1996 (State of the Union Remarks)\n\"To the Media, I say you should create movies and CDs and television shows you'd want\nyou own Children and grandchildren to enjoy.\"\nVice President Gore\nJune 11, 1996 (Joint Statement by Vice President Gore and Mrs. Gore)\nWe join in strong support of President Clinton's call today to bring together leaders of the\nmajor broadcast networks and leading developers of children's programming to discuss\nways to improve the quality and quantity of children's television\nWe firmly believe\nthat the industry also will meet the challenge put forward by President Clinton today.\nFamilies across America overwhelmingly support responsible, regular, and positive\nchildren's programming. We are confident that the leaders of the broadcast industry will\nrespond to President Clinton's challenge and hear the demands of the American people\nfor this type of programming, and we look forward to meeting with them to address this\nvital issue.\nMrs. Clinton\nJune 22, 1996 (National Parent Teachers Association 100th Convention)\n\"We simply must demand more of the people who are producing and profiting from the\nshows that young people watch\nFrom my point of view, the very popular Mighty\nMorphin Power Rangers show, for example, has no place in any line up described as\nchildren's programming.\n\"We must stop showing violent, harmful programs to our kids during their prime viewing\nhours; it is time for our media executives to show some greater responsibility for the\nchildren of America.\"\n\"As parents, we cannot wait for others to act. We are on the front lines and we have to\ntake responsibility. We have to start in our own homes by making clear what is and is not\nacceptable television watching We have to be willing to work with our schools as you\nhave done to help families learn how to watch television critically and to raise questions\nso children know the difference between fantasy and reality.\"\nMarch 4, 1996 (White House Meeting with Children's Television Advocates)\n\"What our children see on TV, as you know SO well, colors their perception of the real.\nworld they live in and television can either warp or enrich our children's emotional and\nmoral growth, and when parents, the entertainment industry and our political leaders\nwork together and act responsibly we can all make sure that television becomes the\nenriching experience for children that it should be.\"\nMrs. Gore\nMarch 4, 1996 (White House Meeting with Children's Television Advocates)\n\"We now have a new opening and a new opportunity. to use the group that you\nrepresent to join together at a new level of cooperation with your coalition that will work\nin behalf of children. We want there to be more and better programming for children.\"\nCHRONOLOGY\n1987\nTipper Gore publishes Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society\n1993\nJune\nPresident sends letters to leaders of broadcast networks applauding\ntheir announcement of parental advisories for violence.\n1994\nMarch 25\nTV Guide interview with President. About the V-chip: \"Philosophically,\nI don't have a problem with it, because that's a matter of a parent\ncontrolling access to programming in the home and I think that's OK\"\nAbout legislation to reduce TV violence: \"I would prefer that we do it\nvoluntarily, as a national cause, without legislation. Just work to\nchannel the brilliance and the power of the entertainment industry to\ntry to deal with these things.\"\n1995\nJanuary\nPresident in State of the Union calls on media industry to be more\nresponsible in programming.\nApril 4-May 25\nVice President and Mrs. Gore host a series of dinners in preparation\nfor Family Conference with academics; technology community; media\nindustry leaders; entertainment industry leaders; television executives;\nand advertisers\nJune 15\nPresident's statement on S.652 supports Senate's inclusion of V-chip\nin telecommunications reform legislation.\nJune 26\nThe First Lady hosts a White House event on children's television and\npublic broadcasting.\nJuly 9-10\nPresident attends Family Conference hosted by Vice President and\nTipper Gore in Nashville, Tennessee on \"Family and the Media.\" He\nrepeats support for V-chip legislation.\nAugust 1\nPresident's statement on H.R. 1555 threatens veto and criticizes\nHouse Commerce Committee for not including V-chip provision in\ntelecommunications reform bill.\nAugust 3\nVice President's statement on H.R. 1555 criticizes House Commerce\nCommittee bill for not including V-chip.\nSe, tember 18\nPresident sends letter to FCC Commissioners supporting at least\nthree hours per week per station of educational children's television.\nOctober 20\nPresident's letter to Sen Hollings supports indusion of V-chip in\nConference report on telecommunications legislation.\nDecember 20\nVice President issues statement congratulating Conference for\nincluding V-chip in telecommunications legislation conference report.\n1996\nThe First Lady publishes It Takes a Village.\nJanuary 23\nIn State of the Union address, President calls upon Congress to pass\nthe telecommunications bill with the V-chip provision, asks the\nindustry to improve programming for children and invites industry to\nmeet with him in the White House by end of February.\nFebruary 1\nPresident's statement on passage of telecommunications reform\nlegislation lauds inclusion of V-chip in final bill.\nFebruary 2\nVice President's statement on passage of telecommunications\nlegislation applauds inclusion of V-chip.\nFebruary 8\nPresident signs, Telecommunications Act of 1996 and invites industry\nto meet at White House on February 29th to discuss TV ratings and\nchildren's programming.\nFebruary 8\nVice President meets with industry leaders to discuss next steps after\ntelecommunications reform and White House meeting on TV ratings\nand children's television.\nFebruary 13\nAd hoc industry group informs White House that they were prepared\nto abandon litigation in favor of developing a V-chip-compatible\nratings system.\nFebruary 15\nWhite House répresentative meets with television writers to discuss\nchildren's television and television ratings, meets with Screen Actor's\nGuild to discuss same.\nFebruary 16\nWhite House representative meets with Writer's Guild representatives\nto discuss President's call for TV ratings system.\nImplementation Group for Television Ratings\nBackground\nAt the meeting between President Clinton and a delegation of media executives on\nFeb. 29, Jack Valenti announced that he would lead the effort to devise a rating system for\ntelevision. Other members of the panel include PBS President Ervin Duggan, Rick Taylor\nfrom Media Productions Association of America.\nThe group, ranging form 15-25 people depending on the issue, has met twice a\nmonth. Subgroups deal with issues such as audience research, rating dissemination, defining\n'newscast' etc (NYT 3/18).\nPurpose\nTo design and implement a rating system for TV programs (not including newscasts\nor sports) that will provide parents with four kinds of information about television programs:\nSexual content, violence, adult language, and age-appropriateness.\nAlso, Duggan suggests adding a positive rating icon to designate shows with\neducational value. This icon would distinguish mindless cartoons from shows like CNN\nNewsroom, Nickelodeon's Launch Box, Court TV's 'Class Action' and CBS 'Schoolbreak\nSpecials.' Duggan said the rating would be based on agreed-upon educational standards\ndetermined by the implementation group.\nTarget deadline\nThe group aims to develop the rating system by January of 1997 (4/4/96 NYT).\nChallenges\nOpponents brought up a number of questions and challenges for the implementation\ngroup. Here are some examples and the groups responses.\n0\nHow can such a vast quantity of material-1640 hours per day-- be rated?\nThe group plans to assign a categorical rating for each program series as opposed to rating\nindividual shows.\n0 How can such a comprehensive rating system be structured?\nThe group will use movie association's ratings as a template but will be more specific about\nage suitability--PG-8, PG-10 for example (NYT 3/18)-and less specific about actual content.\n0 How should the ratings be publicized in an objective and understandable format ?\nThe group hopes to display the ratings, once created, in TV guide, on the air during broadcast\ntime as well as during program promotions (Christian Science Monitor 6/27).\ninfluences\nIn addition to working within the industry to create the rating system, Valenti says\nthe group wants to hear from people outside the industry. Outside influences include\nCanadian TV representatives, who are currently conducting V-chip experiments and refining\nits rating system; church groups; Children Now, a California-based advocacy organization;\nadvertisers and public interest groups.\nCentral Underlying Issue\nHow can the rating system actually make television better for children? The group\ncontinues to work with this issue in mind. One idea is that Valenti's group should focus on\ndaytime hours, the time that children usually watch TV (NYT 3/17). Also, shows carrying\nviolent warnings will draw a limited audience, sponsors will stop advertising, and the\nbroadcasters will either improve the program quality or be forced off the air.\nFDWARD\n2133 Rarsuam House OFFICE BUR,ON\n1.0\nWASHINGTON. DC 20515-2101\n(2021 215-2636\nCOMME RCE COMMIT ID\nDISTRICT OFFICES:\nRANKING MEMBER\nSUBCOMMITTEE ON\nCongress of the United States\n5 HIGH STREET. SUITE 10:\nTELECOMMUNICATIONS AND\nMEDFORD. MA 02155\nFINANCE\n(417) 396-2000\nRESOURCES COMMITTEE\nhouse of Representatives\n188 CONCORD STREET. SUITE 102\nCOMMISSION ON SECURITY AND\nFRAMINGHAM. MA 01701\nCOOPERATION IN EUROPE\nMashington, DC 20515-2107\n(506) 875-2900\nMay 1996\nThe Honorable Reed Hundt, Chairman\nThe Honorable James Quello\nThe Honorable Susan Ness\nThe Honorable Rachelle Chong\nThe Federal Communications Commission\n1919 M Street. NW\nWashington, DC 20554\nDear Commissioners:\nWe are writing in response to recent press reports that the FCC may, at the request of certain\nbroadcasters, abandon its effort to increase the quantity of programming designed to educate our\nnation's children. This would be a very unfortunate outcome of your children's television\nrulemaking and open to further question what remains of the public interest in broadcasting-\nlicenses. We want the Commission to know how strongly we feel about this rulemaking. We\nare concerned that the passion and resources devoted to this issue by those with a commercial\nstake in the outcome is causing the Commission to lose its focus on the mission of effectively\nimplementing the Children's Television Act (CTA) of 1990.\nWe are particularly concerned that the Commission may succumb to the pleas of some that\n\"quality\", not \"quantity\", be the only test of compliance with the CTA. It is unquestionably\nimportant to eliminate definitional ambiguity. Moreover, the Commission is correct to suggest\nthat programming aired before 7 am should not qualify. But if the Commission gives up its\nattempt to specify a minimum amount necessary to guarantee renewal of a broadcast license,\nunscrupulous broadcasters will rush in to undercut those who have worked to increase their\ncommitment to children's educational programming. The result will be even less quality\nprogramming than we now have.\nAnd what we now have is clearly unacceptable. The Commission recognized this reality when it\noriginally proposed a minimum of 3 hours per week of qualifying programming be used as a\nguide to compliance with the CTA. This is an extremely low standard, particularly when\ncompared to the roughly 140 hours that a typical station airs during the week. Indeed, the\nNational Association of Broadcasters believes that the average broadcaster already exceeds this\nminimum, and Westinghouse has pledged to meet or exceed this minimum on CBS. Sadly, the\n-hour standard is still several hours more than many broadcasters are currently airing despite the\nlaw.\nWe urge you to defend the rights of children in this rulemaking, and to reject arguments against\nsetting a clear, unambiguous 3-hour threshold for all broadcasters to meet in return for renewal of\na license to use the public airwaves. Most broadcasters will gladly meet this standard, and the\npublic will be grateful that a minimum standard has finally been set.\nSincerely.\nKildce\nSigners of letter 10 FCC\nThurman\nBonior\nurging \"Three 4 Kids\"\nMica\nLevin\nGibbons\n(as of May 29, 1996)\nRivers\nMeek\nConyers\nJohnston\nAL\nBrowder\nCollins\nDeutsch\nBevill\nHastings\nMN\nMinge\nCramer\nVento\nHilliard\nGA\nBishop\nSabo\nLewis\nAK\nLuther\nMcKinney\nAZ\nPastor\nLambert Lincoln\nHA\nAbercrombie\nPeterson\nAR\nOberstar\nMink\nHutchinson\n?\nMS\nThompson\nThornton\nID\nIL\nRush\nTaylor\nDickey\nJackson\nMO\nClay\nCA\nFazio\nLipinski\nGephardt\nMatsui\nSkelton\nGutierrez\nWoolsey\nMcCarthy\nCollins\nMiller\nDanner\nYates\nPelosi\nVolkmer\nPorter\nDellums\nMT\nWilliams\nCostello\nLantos\nEvans\nNB\nBereuter\nStark\nPoshard\nNC\nClayton\nEshoo\n&\nRose\nDurbin\nLofgren\nHefner\nFarr\nIN\nViscloskey\nWatt\nRoemer\nCondit\nHamilton\nND\nPomeroy\nBeilenson\nJacobs\nNJ\nAndrews\nBerman\nLoBiondo\nIO\nLeach\nWaxman\nSmith\nBecerra\nKS\nRoukema\nMartinez\nKY\nWard\nPallone\nBaesler\nDixon\nFranks\nLA\nJefferson\nRoybal-Allard\nMartini\nFields\nTorres\nTorricelli\nWaters\nME\nLongley\nBaldacci\nPayne\nHarman\nMenendez\nHorn\nMD\nCardin\nNM\nRichardson\nMillender-\nWynn\nNY\nLazio\nMcDonald\nHoyer\nCummings\nKing\nBrown\nAckerman\nMorella\nFilner\nFlake\nCO\nSchroeder\nMA\nOlver\nNadler\nNeal\nSkaggs\nSchumer\nMeehan\nCT\nKennelly\nTowns\nMarkey\nGejdenson\nOwens\nDeLauro\nKennedy\nVelazquez\nMoakley\nShays\nMaloney\nStudds\nDE\nCastle\nRangel\nPeterson\nMI\nStupak\nFL\nStenholm\nEngel\nJackson Lee\nLowey\nGonzalez\nGilman\nFrost\nMcNulty\nBentsen\nBoehlert\nOrtiz\nHinchey\nSlaughter\nTejeda\nGreen\nLaFalce\nJohnson\nQuinn\nHoughton\nUT\nOrton I\nVT\nSanders\nNV\nVA\nPickett\nOH\nHall\nScott\nKaptur\nStokes\nSisisky\nL. Payne\nBrown\nMoran\nSawyer\nWolf\nTraficant\nDavis\nOK\nBrewster\nWA\nDicks\nOR\nFurse\nMcDermott\nDeFazio\nWV\nMollohan\nPA\nFoglietta\nWise\nFattah\nFood\nWI\nKleczka\nBorski\nBarrett\nKlink\nObey\nClinger\nHolden\nWY\nDC\nNorton\nMcDade\nKanjorski\nAS\nFaleomavaega\nMurtha\nGU\nUnderwood\nPR\nRomero-Barcelo\nCoyne\nMcHale\nVI\nDoyle\nMascara\nRI\nKennedy\nReed\nSC\nSpratt\nClyburn\nSD\nJohnson\nTN\nClement\nGordon\nTanner\nFord\nTX\nChapman\nWilson\nBryant\nDoggett\nEdwards\nGeren\ndela Garza\nColeman\nSTATEMENT OF\nREP. EDWARD J. MARKEY\nPRESS CONFERENCE ON CHILDREN'S TV\n\"Three 4 Kids\"\nMay 29, 1996\nToday we take a hop, skip and a jump closer to the goal of setting a minimum standard for broadcasters, giving\nteeth to the Children's Television Act of 1990. Broadcasters who are seeking renewal of their public license\nfrom the FCC deserve to know what the public interest requires when it comes to serving the educational and\ninformational needs of children. What we're fighting for is at least 3 hours of educational TV for kids per week\non every station holding a license from the public. There is clear momentum in favor of a \"Three 4 Kids\" rule,\nas we will demonstrate in just a moment\nIn the past we did not have to specify rules for such things. Serving children used to be an obligation which\nevery broadcaster shouldered gladly, without complaint, in return for being granted the exceptional, protected\nstatus as \"public trustee\" of a slice of the spectrum.\nBut somewhere in the 1980's, about the time a former chairman of the FCC declared that a television was just\nanother appliance - \"a toaster with pictures\" - to be bought and sold as a commodity, service to children began\nto suffer and all too many broadcasters lost any shared notion of what constituted the public interest.\nThat is why, in 1990, I asked Congress to step in and pass the Children's Television Act. This was a proud\nmoment for Congress. In that Act, we required, for the first time, that the broadcaster must serve the\neducational and informational needs of children as a condition of license renewal.\nUnfortunately, cynical attempts by some broadcasters to submit cartoons such as The Flintstones and Mighty\nMorphin Power Rangers as educational programming have persisted. In the only independent analysis of this\nsubject, researchers at the University of California, Santa Barbara found no increase in the number of hours\nclaimed by broadcasters in 1994 compared to 1992, and some broadcasters were still making educational claims\nfor Yogi Bear and Biker Mice From Mars.\nClearly, the FCC needed to strengthen its rules. Reed Hundt, chairman of the FCC, deserves credit for stepping\nin at this point and crafting a proposed rule that would help everyone. Families would get quality programming\nfor kids, and broadcasters would be given clear standards and definitions which they could rely upon when\nseeking renewal of their license. Although many in this room, myself included, considered the proposed\nstandard of 3 hours per week to be disappointingly low, it was still a clear standard for kids.\nThat was April 1995. It is now almost June 1996, and the FCC has still not adopted the \"Three 4 Kids\" rule.\nThis is not for lack of trying. Chairman Hundt has fought for this rule relentlessly. Commissioner Ness has\nalso battled for children and taken a firm stand on the side of \"Three 4 Kids:\" President Clinton, in his only\nwritten comment on any FCC rule, sent a letter in October urging that \"at least\"\n3 hours per week be adopted by the FCC for kids. Peggy Charren, founder of Action for Children's Televisio\nand one of our guests today. will tell you in a moment how hard she has fought to see this rule adopted.\nIn fact, we have with us today representatives of organizations that have knocked on more doors and sent mor\nletters on behalf of the Three 4 Kids\" rule than practically any issue in Washington today Many of these go\nneanle participated with-me last fill when we declared last October 11 to:be Children's TV Day in Washingto\nmeetings with Commissioners and the White House urging action. ! these people standing\nbehind me. I'm talking about mames of groups and participants)\nthe 7 million member National PTA;\nthe 26,000 member National Association of Elementary School Principals;\nThe American Academy of Pediatrics\nThe American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry\nThe Center for Media Education\nChildren Now\nChildren's Television Workshop\nAmerican Psychiatric Association\nThe National Association for Family and Community Education\nAnd I'm talking about many others who have helped along the way, like Shari Lewis, creator of Lambchop, and\nBob McGrath, host of Sesame Street. Bob recently sent to me a petition signed by over 600 teachers, parents\nand child caregivers that he had gathered at the University of Wisconsin Early Childhood Conference, urging\nsupport for the Three for Kids rule. \"I was overwhelmed,\" Bob wrote, \"by the dissatisfaction these people--who\nspend the majority of their time working with young children--felt about commercial television. The enclosed\npetition is evidence that the public is eager to see commercial broadcasters make an honest investment in our\nnation's children.\"\nSo, here we are again, back for more. But this time, we have something extra, something that took a little work\nbut something which should make a difference to those who are still part of the problem, but would like to be\npart of the solution. I am about to unroll, literally, ten feet of signatures that I and my colleagues have gathered\nin the House of Representatives demanding that the FCC adopt a \"Three 4 Kids\" rule, plain and simple. No\nmore excuses. At last count, we had 220 Members of Congress signing this letter, and the number of Members\nthat ask to join keeps growing.\nThis is a MAJORITY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.\nIt is not easy to gather so many signatures, no matter how compelling the cause. In fact, it is a logistical\nnightmare, as my staff will tell you. One of my interns, Elizabeth Malaspina, actually broke a shoe and nearly\nsprained an ankle in her dedication to amassing this unequivocal statement on behalf of \"Three 4 Kids.\" I\npersonally gathered more than half of these signatures, which means that \"Three 4 Kids\" has been a major top\nof conversation on the House floor for the last two months. Congresswoman Blanche Lambert Lincoln, 8\nmonths pregnant with twins, personally expended her precious energy in this cause at crucial moments.\nCongresswoman Morella was an early signatory on this petition and is here today to emphasize that this is a\njoint effort involving both sides of the aisle, Republican and Democrat.\nSo we would like to unroll this document now, and make it official, that the House of Representatives has COI\ntogether around the issue of Children's TV and is sending this message to the FCC, that a majority of this bo\nis not interested in vague, unenforceable guidelines on children's TV.\nMAKE IT CLEAR, MAKE SIMPLE, MAKE IT \"THREE 4 KIDS.\"\nSUPPORTERS OF ADOPTING AT LEAST 3 HOURS OF CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING\nAS THE STANDARD FOR RENEWAL OF BROADCAST LICENSES---\nAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiary . represents 5,200 child and\nadolescent psychiatrists\nAmerican Association of School Administrators represents 16,000 school superintendents,\ncentral administrators, principals, and other school leaders\nAmerican Psychiatric Association - represents 41,000 psychiatrists worldwide\nCenter for Modia Literacy - has 2,000 active members and provides service to 10,000\nindividuals and institutions\nConsumer Federation of America - coalition of 240 consumer groups with combined\nmembership of 50 million\nNational Association of Child Advocates - represents 32 state-based child advocacy\norganizations\nNational Association for the Education of Young Children - has 90,000 members and 2\nnetwork of 450 local, state, and regional affiliated childhood organizations\nNational Association of Elementary School Principals - represents 26,000 elementary and\nmiddle school educators\nNational Association for Family and Community Education - 43,000 members\nNational Black Child Development Institute - affiliate network of 42 cities\nNational Council of L1 Raza -represents 200 community-based organizations\nNational Education Association - 2.2 million members\nNational PTA 7 million members\nOffice of Communication of the United Church of Christ - union of churches with 1.5 millic\nmembers\nChildren Now\nChildren's Television Workshop\nU.S. Catholic Conference\nOVERVIEW\nI.\nOPENING STATEMENT\nTHE PRESIDENT\nII.\nINFLUENCE OF TELEVISION ON CHILDREN\nTHE FIRST LADY\nResearchers:\nAletha Huston, Distinguished Professor, University of Kansas\nRobert Phillips, Deputy Medical Director, American Psychiatric\nAssociation\nKathleen Hall Jamieson, Dean, Annenberg School of Communications\nTelevision Ratings Implementation Group:\nJack Valenti, President and CEO, Motion Picture Association of America\nAdditional Comments:\nMargaret Loesch, President, Fox Children's Network\nAlvin Pouissant, Professor of Psychiatry, Judge Baker Children's Center\nIII.\nWHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL CHILDREN'S TELEVISION PROGRAM?\nMRS. GORE\nTelevision Personality:\nBill Cosby\nAdditional Comments:\nBill Nye, \"the Science Guy\"\nLevar Burton, \"Reading Rainbow,\" \"Star Trek: The Next Generation\"\nFred Rogers, \"Mister Rogers' Neighborhood\"\nDavid Kleeman, Executive Director, American Center for Children's\nTelevision\nGeraldine Laybourne, President, Disney/ABC Cable Network\nGary Chapman, President and CEO, LIN Television Corporation\nDavid Britt, President, Children's Television Workshop\nPeggy Charren, Founder, Action for Children's Television\nBrief Bios On Conference Participants\nAnstrom, Decker-\nDecker Anstrom is President and CEO of the National Cable Television Association.\nPreviously, Anstrom served as senior staff member at the Office of Management and Budget and\nas Assistant Director of the White House Office of Presidential Personnel.\nBaker, Barry-\nBarry Baker was the President, CEO, and co-founder of River City Broadcasting, which\nrecently merged with Sinclair Broadcast Group. Baker will now serve as President and CEO of\nSinclair Communications. In March 1995, Baker was installed as chairman of the Television\nBureau of Advertising's board of directors:\nBewkes, Jeff-\nJeff Bewkes, the Chief Executive Officer and President of HBO, was recently also named\nChairman in November of 1995. In addition, he is a member of the managing committee of\nComedy Central, a trustee of the Walter Kaitz Foundation, and a member of the National Cable\nTelevision Association Board of Directors and the Cable Academy Board of Governors.\nHBO participated with a Canadian company in producing a series of short films entitled\nthe \"Composer's Specials,\" a series of short films featuring a classical composer and his\nfriendship with a child. The series has won numerous awards, including a 1993 Primetime\nEmmy for Outstanding Children's Program for \"Beethoven Lives Upstairs.\"\nBritt, David-\nDavid Britt has been the President and Chief Executive Officer of Children's Television\nWorkshop (CTW) since 1990, after joining the company in 1971 as assistant director of a CTW\nproject. He is also a trustee of CTW. In 1993 he was elected to serve as the first Chairman of\nthe Board of Governors for the American Center for Children's Television, an organization\npromoting excellence in television programming. In 1996, he was elected to be a member of the\nCouncil on Foreign Relations.\nBurton, LeVar-\nLeVar Burton, who is best known for his role as Lt. Commander Geordi LaForge on the\nTV series \"Star Trek: The Next Generation,\" is also the host and co-executive producer of the\nPBS series \"Reading Rainbow.\" The show introduces children to the world of reading and\nbooks. In February, President Clinton nominated Burton to the U.S. National Commission on\nLibraries and Information Science, which advises the White House and Congress on domestic\nand foreign library and information services, policies, and plans.\nBurton was a board member of the National Endowment for Children's Educational\nTelevision created by the Children's Television Act, which did not receive funding over the last\ntwo years by Congress.\n1\nIV.\nBARRIERS TO MORE AND BETTER CHILDREN'S PROGRAMS\nTHE VICE PRESIDENT\nChildren's Programmer:\nLinda Ellerbee, President, Lucky Duck Productions\nIndependent Network:\nJamie Kellner, CEO, Warner Brothers Televison Network\nChildren's Programmer:\nJim Steyer, CEO, J.P. Kids, Inc.\nAdditional Comments:\nJudith McHale, President and Chief Operating Officer, Discovery\nCommunications\nRich Frank, President, Academy of Television Arts and Sciences and\nChairman and CEO, C-3\nVicky Rideout, Director of Children and Media Programs, Children Now\nV:\nCLOSING REMARKS\nTHE PRESIDENT\nPage 7\nLEVEL 1 - 3 OF 3 STORIES\nCopyright 1996 Federal Information Systems Corporation\nFederal News Service\nMARCH 1, 1996, 9:53 A.M. EST FRIDAY\nSECTION: WHITE HOUSE BRIEFING\nLENGTH: 10472 words\nHEADLINE: PRESIDENTIAL ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION\nREGARDING TELEVISION VIOLENCE\nWITH PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON\nFIRST LADY HILLARY CLINTON\nVICE PRESIDENT AND MRS. GORE\nAND COMMUNITY MEMBERS\nTHE OLD EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING\nBODY:\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, ladies and gentlemen, the president and the first\nlady and my wife, Tipper, and I would like to welcome you here to this office.\nAnd traditionally this has been the office of the vice president since way back,\nsince this became the Executive Office Building. And these families with their\nchildren have been invited here this morning for a discussion with the president\nand us here about the historic turning point in the relationship between\nfamilies and the mass media.\nAs you know, President Clinton fought for, got passed in the Congress and then\nsigned into law a real breakthrough measure called the V-chip, which makes it\npossible for parents to exercise more control over what their young children see\non the television set.\nThen yesterday, in response to President Clinton's invitation, the leaders of\nthe entire entertainment industry came to the White House, and after a two-hour\ndiscussion with the president, announced their unanimous agreement to put in\nplace a voluntary rating system for every program that appears on television,\nwhether it's broadcast or cable, and to electronically encode that program with\nall signal that will interact with this electronic device called the V-chip, which\nwill enable parents to say this particular kind of programming is not\nappropriate for my children in my judgment, and SO when I'm not there, they're\nnot going to be able to watch that.\nSome of the parents who are gathered here today, and some of the children, too,\nhave been thinking about this issue and this particular solution, in some cases\nfor quite some time. Some of them participated in the family conference that\nTipper and I host each year, and that the president spoke at last summer. Some\nof them have been featured in the first lady's book about what families can do,\n\"It Takes a Village.\" And this discussion this morning we hope will shed some\nmore light on the importance of the turning point yesterday.\nAnd, of course, to lead the discussion and to explain why this is SO important\nfor our country, the president of our country, President Clinton.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice President. And I might say,\naren't we all glad to be in this big, beautiful office here? (Laughter.) I love,\nto come over here.\nI want to thank all of you for coming, and to say to you and to the members of\nPage 8\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nthe media who are here, yesterday we heard for two hours from a remarkable\nassemblage of people who are involved in the television industry, and of people\nwho broadcast the programs.\nWe heard from cable people; we heard from the people who write the programs,\npeople who represent the actors, the producers. It was an amazing assemblage of\npeople who got together and came to Washington to announce that they had decided\nto develop a rating system for television programs like the movie rating\nsystems, and that, as the vice president, that that would be able to be used\nthen when the V- chip becomes available in television.\nNow the V-chip, of course, will -- will start coming in, in televisions, in a\ncouple of years. And we replace about 25 million televisions a year, I think,\nin America, so it will quickly be a fixture in a significant percentage of\nAmerica's televisions. But the rating system, presumably, will still be helpful\nfor parents even before they have the V-chip.\nI -- we wanted to have you in here today because we want to get a feel and we\nwant the country to get a feel for what kinds of things parents and -- feel\nabout this rating system and the V-chip, what the young people feel about it,\nwhat you expect out of it, what you think it will do, what won't it do, what\nwould you like to see, how would you like to see it work. And of course, we\nhave some advocates and professionals here who can talk about the impact of this\non - on child-rearing in America and on childhood.\nI --- I must tell you, this is going to be a very complicated and difficult thing\nfor these people in television to do, in the sense that they have -- there are\nmany, many thousands of -- tens of thousands of programs on all these television\nstations, and as we get more cable channels, they will multiply exponentially,\nso the -- the job of rating them is very different from the job of rating a\ncouple thousand movies a year.\nSo as they undertake this task, I think it's important for -- for the people in\nthe entertainment industry and the public at large to get just a feel for how\nparents and -- and -- feel about it, how young people feel about it, and kind of\nhow it should proceed, because because they've committed to have this done by\nthe first of next year -- no later than the first of next year, and perhaps\nsooner.\nSo we really just felt we ought to have this conversation today, and we thank\nyou for joining us. And maybe we ought to start with you, Mrs. Sompton (sp).\nIf you could tell the press everybody, if you could tell the press your name\nwhen you speak and then we'll -- and how you happen to be here.\nBARBARA SOMPTON (sp) My name is Barbara Sompton (sp). I've got two kids,\nMichael Eisenbray (sp) 11, and Rebecca Eisenbray, 8. And I'm here because I've\nbeen active with the PTA and I was asked to come here today.\nI think it is fabulous that the industry has agreed to put in this rating\nsystem. I was growing up on Long Island. There were, I think, seven TV\nchannels. And now, as the president said, it's impossible to probably count how\nmany there are. It's impossible for a parent to hope to screen what's on\ntelevision today. And it would be so helpful to be able to have the rating\nsystem that I now use for the movies, because especially with younger\nchildren, and I know it changes as your children get to be teenagers. But I can\nsay to my children, \"You don't watch movies that are PG-13.\" We don't have to\ntalk about it. You know, those are off of the screen, off of the table. We\ndon't have to talk about those, okay. So maybe we'll talk about what we do see,\nbut we don't have to talk about those.\nI think it's fabulous that they're going to start rating even before the V-chip\nis available because parents can use that rating as a tool and the V-chip as a\nPage 9\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\ntool as the children especially get older. Just Michael's age now, I'll leave\nhim alone for a couple of hours and it's wonderful to be able to have that\ntechnology to enforce what I would be enforcing if I were home. And I, by the\nway, am home more than most parents because I don't work full-time. But I\ncan't be with my children by their side at every moment guarding what they watch\non TV, and nor would I want to. I think it's terrific and I really applaud the\nindustry for doing a big turnaround.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: Latonya (sp) ?\nLATONYA JONES (sp): I'm Latonya Jones (sp) and I am the mother of a\nthree-year-old and a soon-to-be. And I work with a group in Maryland called\nAdvocates for Children and Youth. We have something called the Maryland\nCampaign For Kids TV, so I know firsthand that there are a lot of parents who\nare very concerned about the issue of television. And I applaud not only the\nindustry but this administration for the support that you've given for the\nChildren's Television Act, for Public Broadcasting, and also for the V-chip. I\nsee the V-chip, though, as really just the first step, because I think that\nparents not only need negative control over blocking the things that are coming\ninto their homes that they think aren't good, but we need to continue to\nencourage the industry to produce good programming and to produce the kind of\nprogramming that we can become involved in helping our kids make good choices.\nOne of the things that we always talk about is that television is such a\nwonderful educational tool.\nAnd unfortunately, the V-chip and the recent developments are really because a\nlot of what's being produced is not really using the potential that television\nhas to educate and enlighten. So I'd like to see the V-chip and this industry\ncoming together as the first step, to taking it to where they can talk about\npooling resources to produce better children's programming. And we're hopeful\nthat the V-chip will be the beginning of that.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to talk about the better programming in a minute, but\n-- and -- because I think that's a big part of (that announcement ?), especially\nwhen I asked the young people about it. But I want to give the parents who are\nhere a chance to say anything they' d like to say about the V-chip and the\nratings issue. And then I want to come back and talk about the V-chip with you.\nI want you to tell you're story. (Laughter.)\nQ I'm Jim Murphy (sp). I'm here with my family today. I've been involved for a\nnumber of years through the Virginia PTA of the national PTA advocating for\nchildren and children's issues.\nAnd I've long seen the impact that television has on our families and how we\nraise our children, and the environment that our children are living in today.\nThe V-chip in our home is going to be an aid, a tool. Particularly when you\nlook at diversity of ages of my children, ranging from 10 to 17, their viewing\nhabits and what they should be viewing is vastly different.\nI applaud the industry for the fact that -- and I applaud you -- for the fact\nthat you have brought the industry to the rating scheme. I believe that the\ntechnology of what we're going to be doing with the V-chip is actually going to\nassist and aid the industry in refining and defining that ratings system.\nI don't want to -- I want to make the judgment, along with my wife, as to what\nis good quality programming for my children. But I do not want to take that\nsame standard to say that that has to be the industry standards. Those are the\nprofessionals. Let them worry about that. I'm worried about what's in my home.\nI do think that that V-chip is going to define for us now what has previously\nbeen defined by the industry, and that's the family hour or the family time,\nbecause I think people will actually vote -- since most of our airways are\nPage 10\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\ncommercial, they'll vote with that V- chip. And advertisers will understand\nthat, and programmers will understand that. And maybe we will see more family\nprogramming of the type that we would like to see, as a result. So I see it as\nthe critic's choice, and I tend to view it that way.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: I'm so glad to hear you say that because there were -- you\nmade two comments, I just want to say, that kind of resonated with the\ndiscussion we had with the people from the industry yesterday. Ted Turner said\n-- and he went out and said in public, so I'm not saying anything in private he\ndidn't say in public -- that he strongly supported the rating system and what we\nwere doing -- what they were doing, but he did think it would be very costly.\nAnd I think it will obviously cost a lot of money to figure out how to do this\nand then review all these programs to set up a system, but I think he meant he\nthought it would be costly over the long run because programs would not have the\nsame viewership and their advertisers would drop. I think I see it more like\nyou do; it's a voting system. It would be another it's like the Nielsen\nratings, except you won't have -- this won't be a sample; you'll be able to\nactually know. You know, you'll be able to at least sample all the V-chip\nhomes. You take a representative sample. And it might actually change the\ncontent of programming SO that the market, the market forces actually produce\nmore positive programming.\nThe other thing you said I think is important -- a couple of the folks who were\nskeptical yesterday talked about how this wouldn't be a panacea, it wouldn't\nsolve all the problems. One of the men in the broadcasting meeting said, \"I'm\ngoing to take off my\" -- I mean in the industry meeting, he said, \"I'm going to\ntake off my industry hat now and tell you that I'm a parent of three small\nchildren. I'm not looking for panaceas; I'm looking for a little help.\" And he\nwas -- I think that's the way all of us who are parents look at this: There is\nno such thing as a panacea; we're looking for a little help. So you made that\npoint, and I thought it was very good.\n(The president calls on a participant. Name inaudible.)\nMS. : Along that same line, I think that with the V-chip it will be possible to\naddress the issue of whether a particular program is acceptable or not once and\nnot have to keep revisiting it every time you come down to the family room and\nyou find the children have conveniently forgotten that this is one of the\nprograms that you deemed not acceptable, and you have to go back through the\nexplanation over and over again, \"No, remember, I told you you can't watch this\nbecause this is where it does not meet our family's standards.' And I think it\nwill probably reduce some of the tension that goes back and forth as you keep\nreiterating the same issue over and over again of the same programming. Once\nit's explained -- (inaudible) -- with the V-chip it's blocked out and it's done.\nSo I think that's going to be another benefit of it. And again, the push for\nsetting some standards and letting the standards be -- (inaudible) -- reflects\nthe total reshaping of programming -- (inaudible).\nJACQUELINE CALDWELL: My name is Jacqueline Caldwell, and this is my husband,\n(name inaudible) -- Caldwell, and we are the parents of toddiers. They are two\nand four. And we are delighted with the strides that the administration and the\nindustry have made with respect to the V-chip and the voluntary rating system.\nWe have a system right now where, if we happen to be watching television, I will\nnotice that there may be something that we don't want the children to see, and\nmy husband, who is the keeper of the remote, will -- (laughter) -- you know,\nchange the channel. So we have to be sort of actively involved in what they see\nand don't see. And anything, as you say, that will assist -- is that something\n?\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: (Short remark, inaudible because of the laughter.)\nPage 11\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\n(Laughter, cross talk.)\nMS. : Without a doubt.\nMS. CALDWELL: (Laughing.) So we're really delighted with both of the V-chip and\n(this rating bill ?).\nMR. CALDWELL (?) : It is important. I mean, one of the first things that I\nnoticed, as parents of toddlers, is that one of the first things our children\nlearned is how to turn on the TV. And they were 2 --- (scattered laughter) --\nand they could figure out --\nMS. : Yeah.\nMR. CALDWELL (?) -- how to hit the remote, what it channel it had to be on to\nactually get the screen on. So something like this is a vital first step for\nworking parents like us, who, you know, can't be there every single minute that\nthe baby's looking at TV.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Mr. President, you will remember that Dr. Robert Phillip\n(sp) with the American Psychiatric Association was one of the experts who met\nwith us in Nashville last summer and the expert that pointed out that there have\nbeen about 1,000 studies about the relationship between televised violence and\nactual violence, and about six of them have said there's no connection. About\n994 have said there is a very strong connection. And you were telling us in\nNashville about why the expert community has felt strongly about this. Why don't\nyou share some of that?\nDR. ROBERT PHILLIP (SP): Well, I am a psychiatrist by training, although I\nremind my colleagues that I did a sub-internship in obstetrics, so I am ready to\n-- (laughter) -- (respond ?), if necessary.\nMS. : I don't think I'll need you again. (Laughter.)\nDR. PHILLIP: I spend most of my time evaluating persons who've committed crimes,\nand then testifying in court. And I -- what's becoming shocking to me (is ?)\nthat the persons that I was called to evaluate were becoming younger and\nyounger, and the crimes that they were committing were becoming more and more\nheinous. And it began to focus my attention on what some of the root causes\nwere and what are the things that are (coming ?) to influence children to behave\nin ways that most of us, when we were children, perhaps would not even think of\ndoing.\nThe research information is overwhelming and it's clear. Mrs. Gore called our\nattention to the way in which violence within demeaning musical lyrics can\npotentially affect the way in which children behave. Mrs. Clinton, in her book,\ntalks about the way in which young brains form and the way the hard-wiring of\nthat brain is so easily influenced because, by design, children are great\nimitators. That's how they learn. And in my own clinical experience and the\nresearch work that I've been doing, there's no question that both those things\nare true.\nWe are a society that has become infatuated with violence, and we feed our\naddiction to violence in every way conceivable, including at the news trailers\nat 5:00, 6:00, 10:00, and 11:00, on every show that you can think of. \"The\nNational Television Violence Study,\" which the American Psychiatric Association\nand other professional groups have participated in, has shown that violence is\nfree and gratuitous on television, and its effect on children is powerful.\nChildren are like little VCRs. They see something once and then they repeat it,\nand they repeat it over and over and over again.\nI share the enthusiasm that my colleagues share today in thanking you, Mr.\nPresident, and you, Mr. Vice President, for taking the leadership in an area\nwhere parents and while I am trained clinically, my primary job is to be the\nPage 12\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nfather of a 16 and 14-year-old daughters and 7 and 5-year-old sons. And in that\nbroad spectrum, I have seen some remarkable differences in attitude and\nbehaviors towards what they see on television and what they listen to, only\nwithin that generational gap in my own family.\nThese are powerful influences. Television is an extraordinary media, one that\nwe should be very, very pleased that we have access to that technology, because\nchildren have learned enormous things and have benefitted greatly. But with\nthe good side of technology there is the potential risk, and it is that risk\nthat I and the scientific community have become particularly concerned about\nbecause we know without balancing that risk, without paying attention to the\nways in which children learn, the kinds of violent images that sometimes are\nseen on television in which violent acts go unpunished, in which violence may be\nmasked in humor in which there is no pain -- you know I evaluated someone in a\nhospital down south not too long ago who looked at me from his bedside, having\nbeen involved in a homicide in which he was shot, and he said to me, \"Doc, I\nnever realized it was going to hurt to be shot.\"\nThese are powerful statements coming from our children. And these are the kinds\nof images that we, as parents, at the very least need some help in making\ndeterminations as to what children are exposed to, at what age, and what\nfrequency. What my 16 and 14-year- old watch may be quite different from what I\nthink my 7 and 5-year-old ought to watch.\nAnd I think what the two of you have done has really helped facilitate the\nindustry and parents to work together on creating a stronger and more healthy\nenvironment in which children can use television in a productive and useful way.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: Hillary, do you want to comment on that based on what you\nsaid --\nMRS. CLINTON: No, that was incredible. I mean, I think that if we could get\nevery parent to hear that and understand it, then the rating system and the\nV-chip would be even more effective because, of course, one of our challenges is\nto convince parents to use the rating system and to take the time and energy\nthat will be required to implement it in their own homes, and then when the\nV-chip comes along, to be ready to use that as well.\nAnd the information they can get, such as the doctor is explaining, about what\nwe know is the linkage between what they see on television and how they behave,\nI think the more willing parents will be to act.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to get to this -- to the young people here. But let\nme tell you it's okay if you disagree with us about this. (Laughter.) We want\nto hear what you really think. But I want to ask the doctor one more question.\nBefore I had this job -- as I used to say, back when I had a life -- (laughter)\n-- I -- I used to I was a governor of my state, when I ran a big prison\nsystem and a big criminal justice system, obviously. And then I was attorney\ngeneral. And before that, I taught criminal law. So I've been following issues\nof crime and violence closely, from that perspective, for more than 20 years\nnow.\nFor most of my time, it was an article of (faith ?) that 75 percent of all the\nviolence crimes in America were created by people between the ages of 17 and 26,\nand that there was almost a hormonal problem. If you could, literally, just get\nviolent people and put them somewhere until they were 27, you could let them out\n- (chuckling) -- and they would not do that again; that there really almost\nseemed to be sea changes.\nNow we see an astonishing thing, with the crime rate going down among people 18\nand over -- and I might add, with drug use going down among people over 18 --\nand violence going up among people under 18 and -- (well ?) as well as casual\nPage 13\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\ndrug use. And I think there are plainly other reasons for increasing violent\nbehavior among young people, including the lives that many of them have to live,\nvirtually raising themselves on some of the meanest streets in America.\nBut I gather from what you said, that you really believe that the sort of\ncumulative, almost deadening, impact of all this media- generated violence is,\nat least partly, the explanation for rising rates of violence among juveniles.\nDR. PHILLIP: I don't think there's any question, Mr. President.\nAnd you're right. If you look at the recent data that was released by the\nJustice Department, you see this rather unusual trend; a very positive trend\nthat crime rates, overall, in this country are going down, except there has been\nan extraordinary explosion of crime among juvenile offenders, those individuals\nwho are under the age of 18. MORE\nThe use of handguns by juveniles in this country has increased in the last six\nyears by 144 percent, so that in the last year there were close to 2,000 murders\ncommitted by children under the age of 18, and whom the victims were other\nchildren under the age of 18.\nNow, it would be foolish to suggest that the television set and the broadcast\nindustry is responsible for that. It is a multi- factorial problem. But what\nis true, that something has radically changed from when you and I grew up on\nLong Island to the way in which people are growing up on Long Island and other\nplaces in this country now. And one of the things that I think scientifically\nhelps explain the phenomenon is what we talked about in Nashville, and I think\nthat is one of the powerful, negative effects of repeated exposure to gratuitous\nviolence, whether it is through the ear or whether it is through the eyes and\nthe eras combined, and that is the concept of desensitization. And I gave an\nexample in Nashville, and if I can have a moment, I'll give it again.\nMost of us probably remember the rather horrific image, that was captured quite\naccidentally by video cameras, of Rodney King being beaten in the streets of Los\nAngeles. And the first time you saw that image you probably were repelled by\nit. But quite honestly, by the 5th, 10th, 12th or 20th time, you did what most\nof my male colleagues in this room do, since we do have the remote controls, and\nthat is to reach over -- there's a little joke that we've had in the room for\nthe last few minutes that it was a male thing -- you reach for that remote\ncontrol and you change the channel. And it's at the point that you change that\nchannel that I think you demonstrated your desensitization to the cumulative\neffects of violent exposure.\nIn fact, if you think about the ways in which we have used desensitization\nscientifically, the more you show someone an image, the less impacted they are\nby that image, and they are then able to move on to the next step. This is part\nof what's happening in our society with our young. Because of the way young\nbrains are hard- wired, because if you use misogynistic and violent language in\nmusical lyrics and you listen to that, it becomes easier then to use that\nlanguage and convey those attitudes when you interact with others.\nI think these are the kinds of things that substantively contribute to some of\nthe data that you referenced, Mr. President. But we've got to be very careful\nnot to presume that the answer is in the television or that the blame lays with\nthe broadcast industry, because that's summarily incorrect, and we have to\nremember that it is this very same industry that is responsible for\nsubstantively increasing the literacy rate in this country, and by reaching out\nand capturing the minds of children who are visual learners and learn better by\nvisual and auditory images than print images. And so we have to accept both the\ngood with the bad, but recognize that we have a responsibility when we identify\nsomething that could be problematic to try and deal with or create a safety net\nPage 14\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nfor those children for which this may be problematic.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Let me point out that next week, toward the end of next\nweek, I believe it's on March the 7th, the president's going to be hosting a\nWhite House Conference on Youth Violence, looking at a lot of the other factors\ninvolved.\nBut the fact that children, on average, before graduating from high school,\nwitness 20,000 simulated murders on a little box in their home, has to have some\neffect, as all the studies indicate. And while there are many other causes of\nthe problem also, this is one, and it's one that, thanks to the president, is\nfinally going to be susceptible to a solution, and thanks to the industry for\ntaking the steps that they agreed to yesterday.\nSo we have to take each of the causes one by one.\nAnd as the president was saying, these children here may have a different\nperspective and certainly have something to -- something to add to this.\nYou were -- you were going to --\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: I thought maybe we ought to start with Catherine (sp), next\nto me, because Catherine Murphy (sp) actually passed the first V-chip bill ---\n(laughter) -- in the United States of America. I think you all need to know\nthat. It wasn't us; it was her. And SO I think you ought to hear her story.\nAnd I'd like to know how you came to propose this legislation and what you think\nof it.\nMS. CATHERINE MURPHY (SP) Well, I first discovered the project actually with\nthe aid of my father, who was working on the project with with -- (within the\nPTA ?). And it interested me, so I contacted Jim Moran's office and asked for a\ncopy of the legislation that was in committee at the time, and he sent me the --\nHouse Bill 1807, (I think it was ?). And I took a look at that.\nAnd going to this seminar at Girls Nation -- 96 girls from around the country\ncame and set up a mock Senate, and we were all responsible for proposing our own\npiece of legislation, be it a resolution or a bill, on something that we thought\nwas important. And since I discovered this project and it caught my eye and --\nI decided that I would write my own version of the V-chip and submit at the\nGirls Nation Senate. And SO the first day we were there, you know, it went into\ncommittee, and we had to defend it there, and it got through committee and got\nonto. the floor, and I had to defend it there. And you know, it got through the\nentire Senate, and I had a lot of support behind it and sent it to our\npresident, who didn't believe in government regulation of private industry\nwhatsoever, and she vetoed it. (Laughter.)\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: They' do that sometimes. (Laughter.) The -- but let -- let\nme ask you, do you believe -- I want to -- I want to ask, and then I want to\nsort of go around to the students here. How do you think the V-chip should be\nused? And how much difference do you think there is in what -- in the age of\nthe children, in terms of the regulation of the programming?\nMS. MURPHY: Well, particularly in my home, we find that -- I'm 17 and a senior\nin high school, and my brother is 10 and a fifth- grader in elementary school --\nthere's a vast difference between the (four of us ?) between our TV-watching\nhabits. I am so involved in SO many (different ?) school activities that\ntelevision is just not a high priority for me, and I don't find myself watching\na lot of television. I watch the news, and I watch -- (inaudible) and (it's\n?) probably a little odd, (but it's not in ?) my age group. But you know, it's\nnot a very high priority for me, whereas the elementary schoolers will spend a\nlot of time, I've noticed, I mean, a lot of time.\nAnd when I baby-sit, I'd go over and baby-sit, and the parents would say, 'Don't\nPage 15\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nworry about them; they' 11 get ready for bed,\" and turn on the TV. And (then ?)\nit's 9:00; send them to bed. And I'd go over there at 5:00 in the evening,\nthey'd literally turn on the television at 6:00 and just sit there for three\nhours. And you know, I think, \"It's a baby-sitting job, okay?\" But you know,\nwhen it finally got to me and (really ?) thinking about it, these kinds could be\nreading in books or, you know -- (laughing) -- doing their homework possibly,\nyou know. Something has got to be -- there's got to be a line between where\ntelevision is useful and informative, and where it's just mindless activity.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: (To another participant.) Do you watch television a lot?\nYOUNG BOY: I don't watch it as much as most of my peers because I'm somewhat\nbusy, considering my age, because I play two sports. I do street hockey with my\nfriends, and I fence, and I spend a lot of time in a. creek near our house. But\nI do watch some news. I watch the news, one or two cartoons, and sometimes I\nwatch \"ER.\"\nBut I know a lot of my friends basically base their lives on TV. (Scattered\nchuckles.)\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: They do?\nYOUNG BOY: That's all it is. They go home, turn on the tube, and at 10:00 they\ngo to bed. That's it.\nAnd then, during school, that's all they talk about, and they base their lives\non it. And they think everything they see on TV is perfectly fine and it's how\nthey should act, and a lot of it isn't. A lot of it is the exact opposite of\nhow they should be acting, yet they base --\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: But you've actually seen that in your friends who believe\nthat\nYOUNG BOY: Yeah.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: that they -- (they're active ?) they model what they do\nbased on what they see on television? YOUNG BOY: Yeah, they model themselves\nafter Will Smith or Bart Simpson, and they act just like them. And they end up\ngetting in a lot of trouble, too. And they never realize it, because they\nfigure, \"Oh, well, it's okay because I see it on TV every night.\"\nAnd I like the V-chip because it doesn't automatically do anything, but it gives\nyou the power, it gives the parents the power to control it so that kids won't\ndo that. And what I'm hoping is that they can block out the bad programming,\nand if nobody's watching it, then they re liable to put good programming in\nthere because they have to get their income somehow. So --\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: (To another participant.) What about you? (Laughter, cross\ntalk.) (Inaudible) -- you're 11, right?\nYOUNG BOY: Yeah.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: Okay.\nYOUNG BOY: And I -- my sister watches TV sort of like she'll sneak away when\nshe's done with her homework and watch TV, but I hardly ever watch TV.\nI like the computer much better than the TV. I play on the computer for hours\nand hours. I like --\nMS. -: Is there going to be a V-chip for a computer? (Laughter.)\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: Well, (many have ?) thought about that because that's going\nto be a big issue.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Yeah, let me interject -- (inaudible) -- on that. The\nindustry group and the computer industry that has put together this system for\nrating computer games just made an announcement yesterday that they're coming up\nwith their own industry- based approach to give parents the ability to screen\nthe Internet to prevent material that's inappropriate for young children to come\ninto home computers on the Internet. Now, some of the online providers, like\nAmerica On Line, already do that, but there needs to be this industry-wide\nPage 16\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nsystem to do it for the Internet generally in case that legal provision doesn't\nwork out. It's real controversial. But that's good news. But I didn't want to\ninterrupt you. Go ahead with what you were saying about TV.\nYOUNG BOY: Well, I don't have -- I have a couple friends who watch TV a lot.\nThey are brothers. One of them is in fourth grade, the other is in fifth grade.\nAnd they are sort of -- they spend most of their time playing with Leggo,\nplaying on the computer, or watching TV, but they're not -- they don't watch\nmany violent programs. They watch the \"Simpsons,\" they watch cartoons, but they\ndon't watch violent programs, and TV doesn't really affect them much.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Have you ever had a friend, either of you, who watches the\n\"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers\"?\nYOUNG CHILD: No.\nYOUNG BOY: Yes.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: You have?\nYOUNG BOY: I have a friend who watches them, actually -- (inaudible).\n(Laughter.)\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well, does he act out the moves?\nYOUNG BOY: Sometimes him and his friends, like during recess, will go away from\nplaying kickball and they' just pretend they are the Mighty Morphin Power\nRangers, or the (X-Men ?) or whichever show they saw, what they think was the\nmost interesting episode the day before. And they'll just act them out, and\nthen they' 11 just go around pretending they have such power and just pretend\nthey're killing each other or such things, and think nothing of it.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: And they do the kicks and the --\nYOUNG BOY: Yeah.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Teachers say that there are lots of little Mighty Morphin\nPower Rangers and many of them have gotten hurt.\nYOUNG BOY: Yeah.\nMS. : (Off mike.)\nYOUNG BOY: Yeah, everyone.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: What do you think?\nYOUNG GIRL: (Off mike.)\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: DO you think your mother should have some influence over what\nyou watch on television, or should you decide?\nYOUNG GIRL: It would be good if my mom did because -- (inaudible) -- I watch.\nThere are some things like especially shows that aren't really very (interesting\n?), and I just don't think that -- (inaudible) -- should be able -- kids should\nbe able to watch that.\nBecause kids in the second grade, kids in my class, well they're -- there are\nthese two kids -- (inaudible), and they'r always pretending to be the X-men.\nAnd they're like scraping me, and they're -- (inaudible) -- and stuff, and they\ntake like three pencils and go like that and pretend that that they're like all\nthese different people. And this gets really annoying. (Laughter.)\nThey go to -- they go to the principal's office (word inaudible), and they just\ndon't really tell that because they're -- because --\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: Playing out what they saw on TV.\nQ Right.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: What about you all?\nQ I'm 13. I see -- I baby-sit. And I see these kids playing games. And you\nknow, they're just acting out what they've seen on television. But they hurt\neach other. And they don't -- and when you tell them \"You can't do that, and\nyou can't rough-house like this,\" they don't realize what's wrong with it.\nPage 17\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nI also see myself I watch less and less television, as I get more active in\nclubs and sports and groups at my school and going out with my friends. And\nthere are better things to do than watch television.\nAnd the kids could be playing -- like my little brother prefers to go out and\nplay in the woods, or build forts with his friends than to watch television.\nKids need to expand their imaginations. And they could be doing BO many other\nthings that would benefit them, instead of watching cartoons and violence, et\ncetera, et cetera, on television.\nMS. : Recent studies have shown that kids in the inner city watch up to 11\nhours of television a day. And it's important for us to acknowledge that for\nsome parents, they'd much rather have their kids in the house, watching TV, than\nout in the neighborhood that might not be safe, or in activities or with\nfriends that they don't particularly approve of what the friends are doing.\nso I'd much rather have my son at home watching \"X-Men\" and \"Mighty Morphin\nPower Rangers\" than out there with someone who's actually has got a real gun,\nplaying pretend. And when I talk to parents' groups about the fact that the\naverage American household watches seven hours a day, people are usually\nshocked. They hear seven hours: \"How could you do it?\"\nBut when you really think of it, many of us use the television as an alarm clock\nin the morning. So it's very, very common for households to have the TV on for\ntwo hours in the morning, while you find out what's the weather, what are the\nschool lunches.\nAnd then kids who come home from school, they watch a couple of hours in the\nafternoon. And as we know, many parents watch the news with their kids over --\nwhile they're cooking dinner and then at dinner. By the time you've added two\nor three hours of prime time, you're not even talking David Letterman or \"The\nTonight Show.\" It really is not hard to add those hours up a day.\nAnd the kids who are watching 11 hours a day are going to school, but they're\nalso watching cartoons in the morning or watching cartoons in the afternoon.\nThey're watching in the evenings.\nAnd this young man mentioned to me that he's got the sense that a lot of the\nkids here don't watch a lot of TV. And I said I think it's because your parents\nare really aware. And even though there are parents that are also concerned,\nthey don't quite know what to do and how to offer alternatives, or the\nalternative of watching the show and having this fantasy makes them safer.\nSo, I think that the V-chip will be helpful to a lot of the parents. But I also\nthink that encouraging parents to help kids be critical viewers and choose what\nthey're watching carefully is also really important, too.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: What do you think?\nYOUNG GIRL: Well, I think it's kind of like sad what's being put on TV now. And\nit's really good because the V-chip is going to be able to get rid of those\nthings. Because there are things like \"Tales from the Crypt\" and \"X Files\" and\nthose things freak me out, and I'm -- (inaudible). And it's really sad because\nlittle kids are watching them and they get the wrong sense of reality. And they\nshouldn't be watching these things because that leaves them in their rooms\nhugging their teddy bears saying, \"I'm not afraid of the dark, I'm not afraid of\nthe dark,\" practicing for when they're supposed to go to bed, instead of going\noutside and like playing with their friends, riding their bikes and all that\nstuff. And they should be, you know, having fun and not being scared, and it's\nreally awful that they get addicted to it and everything. They should spend\nmore time outside, have fun with their friends because you only get to be a\nchild once.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Have you or any of your friends ever had nightmares and\ntrouble sleeping because of images you've seen on television?\nPage 18\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nYOUNG GIRL: Yeah. We were spending the night at one of my friend's house once.\nIt was her birthday. And we were talking about the last time she had rented a\nmovie, one of the Chuckie movies, and they had seen it, they stayed up all night\nbecause they were terrified, they thought he was in the other room and they\ncouldn't go to sleep. And it's just -- it's sad what -- like the things that go\non TV.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: Well one of the reasons I ask that question is that many\nchildren that watch the television, you know, eight, 10 hours a day, will at a\nyoung age now often be exposed to decapitation or some very gruesome, violent\nscene that they're not in any way prepared to deal with. And many parents tell\nus that they have to spend a lot of time comforting children when they have\nthese nightmares and have trouble going to sleep. And the V-chip gives those\nparents a tool with which they can instruct their television set, don't put\nthose images on in front of my child anymore. And it's a major advance.\nYOUNG WOMAN: I think that's what makes this really important. A lot of people\nare talking about the V-chip will do this, the V-chip will do that. It's not\nthe V-chip that's going to do it, it's the parents. And that's got to be the\nbiggest point people have to understand. New technology isn't --- it's not just\nthis micro-chip, it's not just the broadcasting industry, it's got to start with\nthe parents, and it's got to start at home, the parents educating their children\nabout what's right and wrong on television, and then to be able to back that up\nwith the technology, to be able to enforce the values that they're teaching at\nhome with that technology they have access to.\nMRS. GORE (?): I would just like to say a word for children. I think you're\nexactly right. It is power to the parent; the V-chip is power to the parent.\nBut I think what you're saying is often something we've seen in our house. And\nas you get older, what we as parents want for our children is to make good\ncritical decisions about what they view, to know what freaks you out; and you,\nyourself, can use the V-chip to block out programs that you decide that you\ndon't want to see. And as kids get older, they can use it as a way to protect\nthemselves from those kinds of (images ?).\nAnd I think that's another value of it that we don't want to overlook. We want\nto focus on parents, and parents having the power, but older children also are\ngoing to be able to use the V-chip to help themselves have critical viewing\nskills and know themselves and what they want to see. And SO kids, too, are to\nbe given credit for having sense about this.\nYOUNG MAN: I was thinking about -- we've heard a younger person's perspective on\nhow violence in TV has affected them and their peers. We've heard Catherine\n(sp) talk about how her the activities she's involved with in school, it\nreally doesn't -- it makes television go down on her list of priorities. And I\nthink that when you look at the age groups, I think that there's kind of a\ntransitional age between the children that are young enough to have adult\nsupervision for the majority of the time that they're going to be spending\nwatching TV or doing other activities, and there's a difference between that and\nthe older kids who have soccer practice after school or who are independent\nenough to spend the afternoon at the library by themselves.\nAnd I think it's the age 12, 13, 14, where kids are becoming more independent,\nthey don't require constant attention from their parents or a babysitter, and I\nthink that's the age where a lot of education and a lot of instruction and\nguidance as to what kind of shows are appropriate and what kind of shows are\nindicative of acceptable behavior, I think that's the age, where that needs to be\nstressed.\nPage 19\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nMR. : I think that's a really key point because more and more of the studies\nare showing in that middle school period of time, where we go into the\nprepubescent period and early adolescence, that is probably the most critical\ntime in a child's life, and it is also, I think all of us as parents know, is\nprobably the most difficult time that we have raising our children. We're not\nonly dumber than dirt -- (laughter), but they seem to have gone into a meltdown\nand just kind of tuned us out for a while. And that's where the influence of\nthe television, and it really does seem to be -- that's there the mindset is,\nthat they sort of vegetate there for a couple of years. And it's at that\ncritical point where we're shaping those values that they're going to carry with\nthem. And this goes back into what we were talking about earlier in the crime\nstatistics.\nDR. PHILLIP: You know, it's really interesting, because -- well, I think it's\ntrue with parents we always think about the most critical time as being what\nwe're trying to deal with at the moment, and if you've got adolescents in the\nhouse, that's pretty preoccupying. But I vacillate back and forth with my sons\nand daughters because of the gap. And really, if you look critically at the\nresearch, you begin to recognize that it's all important.\nWhile the value constructs that you talk about, I think, are extraordinarily\ncritical because that's the time when normally, in fact, long before there was\ntelevision, we were struggling at that age to try and figure out what's right,\nwhat's wrong, how we should behave, but, you know, between the ages of one and\nsix, there's a lot that's going on that we tend to forget about. If you put\nchildren in a room with a monitor and you feed violent and aggressive images\ninto that room through the monitor, and leave some toys on the floor and then\nshut the monitor off, guess what happens? Within minutes, those behaviors will\nbe reenacted.\nSo that we've got to recognize that it's all important. And I think the most\npositive thing, as has been said by many of the young folks in this room and\ntheir parents, is that the technology is marvelous. When I was a kid growing up\nin New York there were three television stations, and programming was so\nsophisticated that the Million Dollar Movie ran the same movie four times a day,\nseven days a week. (Laughter.) Things have changed, and they've changed in such\na way that you simply don't know what's on and you don't have a handle of what\nthe information is that's available -- good and bad.\nThis small piece of technology really helps us create a reasonable environment\nfor the broad range of children that may be in your home and in your community\nand in our nation. I predict -- and I hope I'm right with this prediction --\nthat this is the first in a series of technologies that will be helpful. This\none happens to be viewed negatively because it's been cast as an instrument that\nwill block-out signals. But I suspect that there's going to be technology\nthat's going to help us facilitate identifying things that are of value. I\nthink we're going to see (frame ?) shifts in the industry.\nBut most importantly, we have to make sure that this technology does not force\nparents to reach over to that television set and turn it off. Because if we\nturn off the television set, we are really denying our children probably one of\nthe greatest inventions of this century that has really, I think, served an\nenormously useful purpose in providing strong and important influences.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: I'm so glad to hear you say that as well. But that -- I don't\nknow how much time we have left. But I think we ought to hear from the young\npeople especially on the flip side of this. Because we believe it's important\n-- we applaud the industry for developing the rating system and making it\ncompatible with the V- chip.\nPage 20\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nBut the Children's Television Act, which was passed a couple of years ago, also\ncalls upon producers of television programs to develop more and better programs\nthat will be appealing to children in a positive way.\nAnd I just want to make two points and then ask anybody who wants to comment to\ncomment.\nThere were two interesting ideas which came out yesterday. One is the people\nwho were there -- not us; the vice president and I just watched -- but in the\nroom there, in the industry, there was a genuine argument about whether\nparticularly younger people would be as likely to watch any kind of educational\nprogram as they would sort of a violent cartoon or something. And there was a\nwoman there from the Discovery Channel who was a very powerful advocate said,\n\"That is not true. If you make education entertaining, it will be watched.\" And\nshe gave some examples. That's the first thing, shouldn't -- would you like to\nhave more positive programming on television?\nThe second thing I think's important to point out, one of you kind of inched up\nto it when you were talking about the Internet, young people on the computer.\nAll these technologies -- the vice president knows a hundred times more about\nthis than I do -- but it looks to me like they're all merging. I mean, it won't\nbe very long before you can call up any movie you want on your computer, and\nbefore a lot of the things you see on your television screen are interactive. So\nthat I think that basically we're watching -- we're seeing a process and\nthat, by the way, will engage more young people, because as they become more\ncomputer literate, if they have interactive programs on television, it will\nbring them up, or if they can call movies up on the computer it will -- so we\nreally need to also focus on the positive things that they we ought to be doing\nfor our children.\nAnd so -- so what do you think? Do you think if there were would -- would\nyoung people be just as likely to watch more constructive programs if they were\ngenuinely entertaining? Or do you believe there's just an inherent\npredisposition to watch the violence?\nYOUNG MAN: I think that most definitely fun, educational television is -- it has\nbeen and will continue to be widely accepted by young children because young\nchildren are so fascinated by basically everything, and if you fascinate them\nwith something that's going to benefit them and something that's going to make\nthem more aware of what's going on, it opens so many more new doors and windows\nof opportunity for them.\nWatching an educational show about animals, for instance, can spark a child's\ninterest in biology or some kind of science related to animals. And just - I\nmean that's such a fascinating field. And it can give a child like sort of a\nboost into a lifetime of educational fulfillment in terms of TV and their\nstudies, and just basically their lives.\nMRS. CLINTON: One of the things that was said yesterday that I did find\ninteresting is -- the teenagers, I'd like to respond to this -- is that, you\nknow, the movie industry, with few exceptions, mostly the Disney animated\nfeatures, finds that a G rating is a kiss of death for most movies because\nteenagers won't go to see a G-rated movie.\nAnd in fact, most teen-agers won't go to see a PG-rated movie. And they go to\nPG-13, and that's one of the reasons that the category was split, apparently.\nBut one of the -- one of the people at the meeting yesterday said that they're\n-- you know, that they are concerned that when they get to older kids, who are a\nbig market for consumer goods, that the older kids will have more control over\nthe V-chip, because their parents will think they have more authority and right\nPage 21\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nto do that on their own, and that they just won't choose programming once they\nget to be 12, 13 and above, that is educational. Younger kids, yes, you can\nencode it. And you can say, \"I think you'll love watching this animal show.\"\nBut, you know, when you get to be your ages, how do -- how do we send a message\nto the industry that older kids, also, will be interested in programs that\naren't filled with a lot of -- you know, a lot of violence and cheap thrills all\nthe time?\nTEENAGE GIRL: Well, I date I'm 14, and I'm starting to date. And you know,\nwhen I go to a movie with some friends or that -- you know, we went and saw \"Toy\nStory.\" We went out to the mall and saw \"Toy Story,\" ate dinner there. so it's\nnot necessarily that all teen- agers are picking the violent movies or the PG-13\nand the \"R\" movies.\nAnd I find more of my friends go see the new Disney movie or the -- you know,\nthe movie that is marketed towards the (children ?) because it's cute, it's\nfunny, you know. And so, it's not always --- I -- I mean, I mean, I cant' speak\nfor everyone, but we prefer to go see, you know, the new Disney thing, instead\nof the -- the rated-R movie with who knows who.\nMRS. CLINTON: And you are an exception ---\nTEENAGE GIRL: (Laughs.)\nMRS. CLINTON: -- (compared ?) numbers that are out there.\nTEENAGE GIRL: I think also it has to do with where I live and the family\nupbringing that I've had --\nMRS. CLINTON: That's exactly right.\nTEENAGE GIRL: -- (chuckling) - (of the ?) -- that I don't -- I watch a\ntelevision show and, you know, someone dies in it, and I cry. And I'm just like,\n\"Oh, my God\" -- and because I'm not numb to it. But I notice that some of my\npeers are numb to it. They can watch, you know, really violent television and\ngo, \"Oh, okay, you know. Great. But I can't do that, and I sit there going,\n\"Oh, my God,\" you know.\nANOTHER TEENAGE GIRL (?) I think (off mike) -- and I noticed in \"Aladdin\" --\nand I haven't seen \"Toy Story,\" so I don't know about that one -- but when I\nwatched \"Aladdin\" with my peers, there were enough jokes that are on the higher\nlevel and that are almost bordering political satire that it catches the\nattention of the older crowd, and I think that's something that's very smart.\nWhat they've got to do is understand the same thing that apparently the\nadvertising industry is a master at understanding: You have to have your target\naudience. If you're trying to target teenagers, there's going to be certain\nways you're going to have do it, and it's not -- you don't have to do it with\nthe violent programming.\nBut educational programming for younger children is drastically different than\n-- (because what educational cries for is what would catch their eye. And I\nthink probably one of the keys for the industry to start to create educational\nprogramming for kids aged like 14, 17, high school -- I mean freshmen through\nsenior in high school -- is to use freshmen and seniors in high schools.\nThey've got to, because, I mean, teenagers want to relate to other teenagers.\nAnd I mean, that's what I can say. And to use other teenagers -- you know, the\nnews, kind of -- in the kids' news stories, I think you were pointing out, when\nthey have other teenagers that come on and share, like, experiences or neat\nadventures, or a teenager who got to go do this or got to go do that -- I think\nthat kind of stuff -- sharing each other's experiences -- that's the kind of\nthing that educational programming cries for.\nDR. PHILLIP: There's a dearth of quality children and young adult programming.\nThe industry, by default, has left it to the cable industry that's done, really,\na remarkable job of providing quality children's television. But the open\nPage 22\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nairwaves -- and I. think this is the important issue of the telecommunications\nact -- there really has to be an aggressive looking-at the kinds of programming\nwhich, even as late as the early '70s, was available. I can remember the\ninformation rock series, and when a bill becomes -- how a bill becomes a law,\nand those little five-minute vignettes that used to be on the broadcast\nnetworks, which have summarily disappeared.\nKids are information sponges, in answer to your original question, and they will\ndraw up anything that you put in front of them. The problem is that we have\ntended not to put in front of them the kinds of things that will be beneficial\nto them as persons, but, more importantly, the kinds of things that are going to\nbe beneficial to them as young citizens in this nation.\nMS. : And that's why we feel that television, as the -- (inaudible) -- I'd be\nremiss, representing the advocacy community, to not talk about the opportunities\nwith the FCC, with the fact that there are two openings, and now that the\nTelecommunications Act has been passed, it changes the license renewal period\nfor stations and when communities actually will have a chance. So, who is the\ncommissioners who are on the FCC and the strengthening of the Children's\nTelevision Act is really crucial because that is really impacting on the kids\nand the quality of the programming.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: You know --\nMS. : I did just want to talk a little bit about an effort in Maryland, only\nbecause I think what we're all talking about is sort of the theoretical, but how\ndo parents who are at home get involved in activities and in groups that are\nactually trying to do something. And in Maryland we have something called the\nMaryland Campaign for Kids' TV, which is the only statewide group that we have,\nteams that are assigned to each of the stations, that talk to station management\nand work in partnership with them to talk about what's on television.\nAnd we did put out a book -- you talked about how important it is not to see\nturning the TV off as the only alternative. You hear people in the industry\nalways say, \"There is already a V-chip; it's the 'on' and 'off' button.\" But we\nthink pulling the plug isn't the only option, and what we've done is we've\norganized this parents' guide by age group, because it's very true that toddlers\nare dealing with something very different. And then for three years we have\nevaluated the programming that's on Maryland stations to take a look at the\neducational programming to see is it getting better, is it getting worse. And\nwe have kids involved in that, too.\nI think that you're very right to say that the children are so savvy these days\nfrom a very early age. My daughter at three knew -- the fact that \"VCR\" was\npart of her vocabulary when she could start to talk. And I think that we're\nreally remiss if we don't get the kids involved and realize, as you just said,\nthat teenagers want to see other teens; they don't want to see old people\ntelling them what to do. So get the teens involved. And the industry has the\nability to use all those creative resources to do good, positive shows. It\ndoesn't all just have to be the violent stuff.\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE: I wanted to say before we close, Mr. President, I -- and\nI've been getting the signal that we've gone way overtime because this\nconversation has been so interesting, and I know the president has expressed the\nhope that conversations like this will take place in communities all across the\ncountry. And just as Tipper's campaign with music provoked conversation about\nthis issue, this new law and the industry move yesterday will have the\nextra-added benefit of provoking conversation about the wide range of issues\nthat television raises for families that often go undiscussed.\nYou were talking about children \"vegging out\" on television, that's a problem.\nPage 23\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\nYou were saying they re little VCRs. Well sometimes they just blink \"12:00,\n12:00, 12:00\" and that's a problem. (Laughter.) The nightmares, the -- but the\nstudies -- the studies, while pointing out some of the problems, also\ndemonstrate, as we learned in Nashville, that children who see a few hours of\ntelevision each week, with the programming chosen thoughtfully with their\nparents involved in making the choice, actually do better in school and learn\nfaster.\nAnd SO it really does not make sense for most families to just pull the plug and\nthrow the television out of the house, although we've probably all been tempted\nto do that at times. It's not practical. Nor is it practical, as you said, for\na parent to be told, you have to stand there every minute of every hour and\nmonitor every single program your child is watching. That is impossible.\nWhat the V-chip provides is a third option, for parents to make categorical\nchoices and say this is the kind of programming that I think is good for my\nchild, and I want it available in my living room, as you said. But this other\nkind of programming, which has images or language or scenes that my child is not\nprepared to deal with yet, keep that out of my house. And the choice is made by\nthe parent. But this conversation today, as I said, is one that's taking\nplace all across America. And this new program, the V-chip and the rating\nsystem, is going to make it possible for parents to act on those choices.\nMr. President?\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: First of all, I would like to thank all of you for being\nhere, especially the young people.\nThank you, Doctor, it's good to see you again.\nDR. PHILLIP: Thank you, Mr. President.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON: I want to thank Tipper Gore. When she first proposed the\nratings system for records, they -- it was considered heresy, and now that she's\nlived and worked hard at this -- long enough to make it just a matter of\nAmerican conventional wisdom in television.\nAnd let me say that -- that for Hillary and for me, based on our experience over\nthe last 15 or 20 years, maybe the most important reason to have this\nconversation today was the point that Catherine (sp) made, when she first talked\nabout her work for the V-chip, and that is that technology is intrinsically\naction-oriented, but neither intrinsically good nor bad. It depends upon the\nvalues and the action of the people in control of the technology. And while\nthis gives more -- the V-chip and the ratings information -- will give more\npower to parents, it's utterly useless unless they use it.\nAnd so, what I'm hoping that this did today is to convince other people, in\nother community settings in every community in our country, to begin to discuss\nthese matters and to begin now, if they -- if their community does not have an\nadvocacy group like the one (that I'm ?) involved in, perhaps to form one, or at\nleast figure out how friends and neighbors can get together and figure out how\nthey're going to use this ratings information and figure out how they're going\nto use the V-chip, as the V-chip comes in.\nBut I was glad to hear Mrs. Thompson (sp) say -- Ms. Thompsons (sp) say -- what\nshe did about this \"You don't have to wait for the V- chip to make use of the\nratings information.\" You know, most parents -- (chuckling) are still\ninfluenced by what their -- I mean, most children still have some influence\nabout what their parents say, and parents are influenced by their children.\nSo I just want to encourage that. We need that every place in America. This\nlaw that was passed, and this remarkable effort by the industry, will not amount\nto a hill of beans if the parents do not take action in their homes and if, in\neach community, the community activists who know how to make the most of this,\nPage 24\nFederal News Service, MARCH 1, 1996\ndon't work with the parents to do it.\nMS. : Thank you. PRESIDENT CLINTON: Thanks a lot. It's great to see you.\nMR. : Thank you.\nEND\nLANGUAGE: ENGLISH\nLOAD-DATE: March 2, 1996\nTALKING IT OVER\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nRELEASE: WEEKEND, AUGUST 12-13, 1995\nHave you seen what's on daytime television lately? During a recent workout,\nI started channel surfing, and the first show I saw was about wild\nteen-agers and their mothers. Another network featured women who use men for\nmoney. And on a third were people who believe their thoughts are controlled by\naliens.\nI cringed.\nThen, I found refuge in Big Bird.\nFor many parents across our country, there is great comfort in knowing that\nhowever prurient. violent or sensational daytime programming has become, there is\nstill an oasis for children called public television.\nThe truth is, my daughter is a Se\nStreet kid. When she was younger, we\nwould tune in together and read the books at went along with the shows. Over the\nyears, my husband and 1 could see that Big Bird, Emie, Bert and Cookie Monster\nhad helped her learn to spell, count and, perhaps just as important, appreciate the\ncultural richness of our country.\nBut my daughter's experience is not the only reason I am disturbed by recent\nattacks on public television. There is no escaping that television is a pervasive\ninfluence in the lives of all of our children - one that can have a significant Impact,\npositive or negative, on their social and intellectual development.\nA friend told me recently about the time her daughter came home from the\nfirst day of school and was so excited that she couldn't stop talking about it. After\ntelling her parents about everything that had happened, she went to the television\nset and told Mr. Rogers too. Can you imagine that child having the same\nconversation with the Power Rangers?\nThe little gift's story gives us a window on the latest research. Studies show\nthat children who watch programs like \"Sesame Street,\" \"Barney\" and \"Mister\nRogers Neighborhood\" are better prepared to learn by the time they begin\nkindergarten than children who watch only commercial television. Early on, reading\nbecomes a part of their lives. So do numbers, ideas and a rich imagination.\nIn fact, just at that wonderful stage when young children seem to absorb\nevery new word and concept they come across, educational television provides a\nunique learning tool. Even watching as little as 25 minutes a day can help.\nCREATORS SYNDICATE\nLISA CAPUTO\n003\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 8/12-13/95\nPage 2\nResearchers have found that low-income children between the ages of 2 and 5 who\nwatch a small amount of educational programming do significantly better on tests of\nreading potential, vocabulary, mathematical reasoning and overall readiness for\nschool.\nBy contrast, kids who spend the same amount of time watching non-\neducational cartoons and adult programs are not as well prepared for learning in\nschool.\nRecently, Sonia Manzano, known to millions of children as \"Maria\" on\n\"Sesame Street,\" came to the White House to talk about educational television. She\ndescribed what it was like to grow up in the Bronx as a Hispanic child who never\nsaw anyone who looked or talked like her on television.\n\"I know that if a child spends his life not seeing himself reflected in society,\nwhich mostly means on television, it will wear him on in she said.\nChildren's programs like \"Sesame Street,\" she said, offer a feeling of\nbelonging and positive role models to all children in our society.\nThey are particularly beneficial to low-income children whose families often\nlack other opportunities for intellectual stimulation.\nThe public broadcasting channel is the only source available for educational\nchildren's programming for about one-third of American families that cannot afford\nor do not have access to cable television. And 1 bet most Americans would be\nsurprised to know that the majority of public television viewers come from families\nwith annual incomes of less than $40,000. It is the children in these families who\ngain the most from public broadcasting.\nI do not mean to suggest that public television is a panacea. Clearly, we\nparents must take responsibility for turning off the television more often and\nmonitoring the shows our children do watch. And we can do more as a society to\nhelp our families meet that challenge. A rating system and the proposed v-chip to\nblock out violent programs from individual homes could make a difference.\nBut let's not kid ourselves. In a cuiture like ours, which is so dominated by\ntelevision, children's programming is not a luxury enjoyed by a privileged few. It is a\nnecessity for tens of millions of American families.\nCOPYRIGHT 1995 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n03601 96, FRI 08:11:FAX\nSINDICATE\nNOTE TO HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON EDITORS: THE FOLLOWING IS A\nBONUS COLUMN FOR YOUR USE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. --\nCREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.\nTALKING IT OVER\nBY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE\nAs one of the few mothers in the room when the President met with leading\nentertainment executives at the White House Thursday, I can tell you how encouraging the\ndiscussion was.\nThe heads of companies that produce our movies and television shows were all\nthere. Cap Cities/ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS, Disney, Turner Broadcasting, DreamWorks,\nWarner Bros., Sony and Viacom, along with other major media companies, cable stations\nand the creative guilds, joined together to launch plans for a television rating system.\nThey pledged to develop a system by early next year that will help parents gauge the\namount of violence; sex and profane language used on shows. Also discussed were ways\nto improve the quality of children's programming.\nDuring the meeting, I had a strong sense that these executives are listening to\nAmerica's parents.\nThey are the people who run the networks, operate the cable stations and produce\nthe shows -- the men and women who are, as one executive put it, \"setting the cultural\nagenda for the world.\"\nJust getting these entertainment executives to sit down at a table together was\nremarkable. After all, the entertainment industry is highly competitive, and many of these\nprofessionals have conflicting interests. A few weeks ago, there were doubts that such a\nmeeting could ever take place, let alone at the White House.\nThis is an impressive step forward. Information is power. And right now, parents don't\nhave enough information or power when it comes to the programs their children watch on\ntelevision.\nI know this from experience. As hard as I tried to be vigilant about my own daughter's\nviewing habits when she was younger, I couldn't monitor the television screen 24 hours a\nday.\nToday, the majority of American children live in houses with three television sets. The\ntypical family watches 51 hours of television a week. They can get shows on up to 70\nchannels, making it even harder for parents to control the messages and images their\nhildren absorb.\nCREATORS SYNDICATE\nLISSA MUSCATINE\n0.\n003\n03/01/96 FRI 08:11 FAX\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 2/29/96\nPage 2\nA rating system may not be the perfect solution, but it certainly will help. Ratings will\nbe encoded so that parents can use the new v-chip to block out programs that are\ninappropriate for their children, As part of the telecommunications bill the President signed\ninto law last month, v-chips will be required in all new television sets starting in 1998.\nAs the President said at Thursday's meeting, \"We are handing the TV remote control\nback to America's parents -- so that they can pass on their values and protect their children.\"\nThe industry leaders know it will be a daunting task to give ratings to hundreds of\nthousands of television shows. Yet, to a person, they seemed ready and willing to rise to the\nchallenge.\nAt the same time, nobody in the room was under any illusion that a rating system or\nthe v-chip will end violence in America or get rid of all the guns on our streets.\nEven with ratings and a v-chip, parents have to take more responsibility by turning\nthe television off sometimes. They have to work harder to engage their children in other\nactivities. They have to take the time to talk to their kids instead of parking them in front of\nthe tube at every opportunity.\nVice President Gore told the broadcast executives that parents have to take primary\nresponsibility \"for raising their children in an era of information overload.\"\nBetter programming is also part of the solution. One of the legitimate concerns of the\nindustry representatives is that educational and quality programming on commercial\ntelevision, is not always watched as much as the alternative. Parents must not just screen\nout bad programs but tune in good ones.\nOne executive emphasized that education and entertainment are not mutually\nexclusive and that quality programming can be profitable. The Discovery Channel, for\nexample, has started a 24-hour children's educational channel with no commercials.\nNickelodeon, Disney and A&E are staples of our household, and I'm sure that's true\nfor many other parents and children who want a steady diet of family-friendly programming.\nThis is all happening because millions of parents across the country have let the\nentertainment industry know that there is an audience out there for quality programming.\nViolence, sex and profanity are not the only things that sell.\nNow, with a rating system in the works, the industry has taken its biggest step ever on\nbehalf of parents and children. For the commitment they made to the President and the\nAmerican public Thursday, the leaders of our media and entertainment industry deserve our\nthanks and praise.\nCOPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\nFebruary 29, 1996\n03/01/96 FRI 08:11 FAX\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON 2/29/96\nA rating system may not be the per\nbe encoded so that parents can use the ni\ninappropriate for their children. As part of\ninto law last month, v-chips will be require\nAs the President said at Thursday's\nback to America's parents -- so that they C\nThe industry leaders know it will be\nthousands of television shows. Yet, to a pe\nchallenge.\nAt the same time, nobody in the roo\nthe v-chip will end violence in America or 9\nEven with ratings and a v-chip, pare\nthe television off sometimes. They have to\nactivities. They have to take the time to tall\nthe tube at every opportunity.\nVice President Gore told the broadc\nresponsibility \"for raising their children in a\nBetter programming is also part of tl\nindustry representatives is that educationa\ntelevision is not always watched as much a\nout bad programs but tune in good ones.\nOne executive emphasized that edu\nexclusive and that quality programming ca\nexample, has started a 24-hour children's\nNickelodeon, Disney and A&E are $\nfor many other parents and children who и\nThis is all happening because millio\nentertainment industry know that there is a\nViolence, sex and profanity are not the onl\nNow, with a rating system in the wor\nbehalf of parents and children. For the com\nAmerican public Thursday, the leaders of (\nthanks and praise.\nCOPYRIGHT 1996 CREATORS SYNI\nALL RIGHTS RESERVED\nFebruary 29, 1996\nCOLLECTED QUOTES BY FIRST LADY\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nEXCERPTS FROM REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY TO THE AMERICAN\nNEWSWOMEN'S CLUB\n(June 26, 1995)\n\"\nChildren who watch about 25 minutes of public\nbroadcasting every day have, after two to five years of\nexposure, more success and better readiness for school than\nchildren who watch 25 minutes of commercial television.\n\"We add that information to the more general knowledge we\nhave about the impact of television on our children, and it\nunderscores how important it is that we as adults recognize the\ndifferences between children and adults. And those differences\nare particularly marked in the way children respond to and from\ntelevision.\n\"There is no getting around the fact that television is a\npervasive influence. And it can either be an influence for the\ngood or for the ill. That is up to us to determine. It is not\nout of our control\n\"\nEducational television plays (a positive role) in the\nlives of children, but particularly in the lives of those\nchildren in 40 percent of our families that do not receive cable,\nwho are solely dependent upon the three major networks and public\nbroadcasting, and who, in larger numbers than the rest of the\npopulation, often do not have the resources with books and\nvideocassettes and renting movies every week so that their\nchildren can have the same kind of opportunities that we try to\nprovide to our own.\"\nEXCERPTS FROM REMARKS AT THE CASEY JOURNALISM CENTER FOR CHILDREN\nAND FAMILIES\n(June 13, 1995)\n\" Issues affecting children are not marginal issues, they are\nthe issues that really are at the core of what kind of country we\nhave, what kind of investments we should make, what our\npriorities ought to be Children's issues are not soft issues,\nbut rather the very essence of who we are as a people; how we\ntreat our children and what kinds of support we give them will, I\nhope, continue to make the case for including concerns about\nchildren in everything else that we do\n\"\nLooking at the business world is as important as looking at\ngovernment policy. Looking at individual and family\nresponsibility is as important as looking at the cultural norms\nas played out in movies or television. They are all part of the\nculture in which children are being raised\n\"\nChildren are the result of the values of both their families\nand the broader society in which they are raised, and to pretend\nthat the family is some kind of little fortress immune from the\neffects of what goes on beyond its walls is as equally\nirresponsible as pretending that government policy or business\npolicy can substitute for a family's love, concern and attention\nto children.\"\nEXCERPTS FROM REMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY TO THE NATIONAL\nCONFERENCE ON YOUTH VIOLENCE\n(August 15, 1994)\n\" Think of what it is like today for the young people in\nthis room and the millions of others like them who are immersed\nin a culture of violence. A culture that in so many ways\nglorifies violence. We see it every day on television, we see it\nin our movies, but worst of all we see it every single day on the\nstreets and neighborhoods where children are trying to grow up.\nWhere many, too many, are in effect raising themselves. In too\nmany neighborhoods, gunfire is a daily ritual of life, and an uzi\nis a badge of honor, instead of a mark of cowardice, which it\ntruly is. A bullet wound is an emblem of adulthood.\"\nEXCERPTS FROM THE FIRST LADY'S APPEARANCE ON THE OPRAH WINFREY\nSHOW\n(May 16, 1995)\n\"\nAdults need to be careful about what they say around\nchildren and what they portray to children The kind of\ndysfunctional behavior that we are subjecting our children to\ngives them no role models, gives them the feeling that anything\ngoes, that they can do anything with no consequences and get on\ntelevision\nI think that talk shows, combined with the violence,\nis, in effect, changing the way children feel about themselves in\nvery damaging ways to themselves and our country.'\nEXCERPTS FROM INTERVIEW WITH THE FIRST LADY BY NEWSWEEK MAGAZINE\n(January 4, 1996)\n\"\nI was looking at some research that a political scientist has\ndone showing that young people are by far, in her words, more\nmisanthropic that people our age and older. They don't trust\nanybody. They have more emotional stress in their lives.\n\"And the explanation for that has to do with everything from\nthe breakdown of the family and divorce, to the steady diet of\nwhat they see on television, to the way they're treated by the\nadults in their lives. And I just think we've got to take a step\nback here and say, \"What are we creating? What are we doing to\nour children?\" There aren't any simple answers. You can't say,\nit's just the government's fault. or you can't say, it's just\nthose irresponsible parents living in the inner city. The\nresponsibility is spread all the way across society.\"\nEXCERPTS FROM MIAMI HERALD COLUMN, \"PUBLIC TELEVISION: AN OASIS FOR\nCHILDREN\"\n(August 13, 1995)\n\"...just at that wonderful stage when young children seem to absorb every new word and\nconcept that they come across, educational television provides a unique learning tool. Even\nwatching as little as 25 minutes a day can help. Researchers have found that low-income\nchildren between the ages of 2 and 5 who watch a small amount of educational programming\ndo significantly better on tests of reading potential, vocabulary, mathematical reasoning, and\noverall readiness for school.\n\"By contrast, kids who spend the same amount of time watching noneducational\ncartoons and adult programs are not as well prepared for learning in school.\"\n\"...I do not mean to suggest that public television is a panacea. Clearly we parents\nmust take responsibility for turning off the television more often and monitoring the shows\nthat our children watch. And we can do more as a society to help our families meet that\nchallenge. A rating system and the proposed V-chip to block our violent programs from\nindividual homes could make a difference.\n\"But let's not kid ourselves. In a culture such as ours, which is so dominated by\ntelevision, children's programming is not a luxury enjoyed by a privileged few; it is a\nnecessity for tens of millions of American families.\"\nEXCERPTS FROM REMARKS TO CHILDREN NOW CONFERENCE VIA SATELLITE\n(March 4, 1994)\n\"Over the past few years, a lot of attention has been paid to violence in movies and in\ntelevision programming, and in the records that young people listen to. And on that score,\nthings are beginning to improve. As the President said earlier this week, the entertainment\nindustry has -- as a result of public concerns -- become much more involved in efforts to\nreduce violence in network programming. Their willingness to set up a voluntary monitoring\nsystem is a step in the right direction.\"\n\" One of the biggest dangers of excessive coverage of violence is that, in a child's\neye, the stories validate, sometimes even glamorize, dysfunctional behavior. Violence\nbecomes normal -- and, in an odd way, even painless. It becomes harder for a child to\ndistinguish between fact and fiction\n\"The second danger of excessive coverage is that children become numbed -- or, as\nsocial scientists say, \"desensitized\" -- to violence. Children become so habituated to seeing\nand hearing about violence that shootings, beatings -- even death -- come to seem normal to\nthem.\n\"They develop an ironic detachment from life, a fatalism that prevents them from\ntrusting anyone or anything. Recently I read a story about young children planning their own\nfunerals. These children were SO sure they were going to die violently that they had told their\nfamilies what clothes they wanted to wear at their funerals, what music they wanted played,\nall with a casual detachment about what living and dying really means.\"\nPage 3\n2ND STORY of Level 1 printed in FULL format.\nCopyright 1996 Reuters, Limited\nMay 31, 1996, Friday, BC cycle\nLENGTH: 455 words\nHEADLINE: Hillary Clinton urges boycott against TV violence\nDATELINE: SAN FRANCISCO\nBODY:\nFirst lady Hillary Rodham Clinton encouraged parents Thursday to refuse to\nbuy the products of advertisers who sponsor violent television programs watched\nby children.\nClinton, speaking during the taping Thursday evening of a television program\non the impact of television violence on children, said she hoped advertisers and\nprogrammers would hear from parents and citizens about what they expect\nShe expressed hope \"that we're not just going to be passive watchers any\nlonger and that we now have enough evidence about the impact of television,\nparticularly violence, on the desensitization of our children, and that we will\nsay\nwe're not going to buy the product of advertisers who continue to push\nthis kind of programing.\"\n\"We're not going to listen to it any more. We're going to turn off the\nlevision set, Clinton said. \"That's the best way of getting the attention of\nthe people who make the programming decisions.\"\n\"We have to send two messages: One, that we are not going to watch\nprogramming that we believe as parents is not good for our children, and that we\nwill reward those programmers and advertisers who do put on quality programing\nby watching it,\" she continued.\nMrs. Clinton and several other speakers took part in \"The Smart Parent's\nGuide to TV Violence\", produced by KQED, a public television station in San\nFrancisco. The one-hour program will be shown on public broadcasting stations in\nSeptember.\nClinton said she believed there should be more quality programming \"that you\nwant your children to watch.\"\n\"I'm hoping that we're going to see broadcasters required to offer three\nhours a week of quality educational programming for children,' she said. She\nsaid she hoped the Federal Communications Commission would require broadcasters\nto agree to such a requirement to have their licenses renewed.\nClinton said the \"V\" chip that a new U.S. law requires to be installed in new\ntelevision sets within the next two years would be \"a tremendous tool for\nparents.' The chips will enable parents to exclude violent programs from their\nes.\nFor Release\nFIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nREMARKS TO THE NATIONAL PTA 100TH ANNUAL CONVENTION\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nJUNE 22, 1996\nThank you. Thank you so very much. Don't you feel like you\nwere at the Olympics when that music started? You know I'm so\nexcited about the Olympics coming, we had the torch arrival and\ndeparture at the White House yesterday, and the night before.\nAnd when the music started, I thought of all those times as a\nlittle girl when I would sit in front of our television set and\nwatch the Olympics. My brothers and I would go out and race each\nother around, and my mother one time went to the dime store, you\nsee how old I am, the dime store, and bought ribbons for us.\nIt is such, a pleasure for me to be with people who care so\nmuch about the values that make our country what it is, and who\nknow how important it is to support our children. I want to\nthank Joan for that introduction, but more than that, for the\nleadership she has given on behalf on the PTA. She has been a\nstrong, strong voice. And I know she is going to be succeeded by\na strong, strong successor. So the leadership of the PTA is in\ngood hands.\nAnd how fortunate we are to be celebrating the 100th\nanniversary of this important group. I wasn't able to see the\nslides but I heard some of the laughter and I know that Joan did\na quick change from the clothes she was wearing to the clothes\nshe is wearing now. We are celebrating a centennial commitment\nto the children of this country. And there are lots of parallels\nbetween the times when the PTA got started and our times today.\nI was thinking as I stood backstage that a hundred years ago, we\nwere changing from a society that was primarily agricultural and\nrural to one that was industrial, where people were leaving the\nfarms and crossing the oceans to come to our cities. Where we\nfaced new challenges about how to educate young people of\ndifferent backgrounds to be prepared for a new century.\nAnd here we are again, as we move from the industrial age,\nfrom the cold war, from the hot wars of this century, to a time\nwhen the global economy and technology have changed our world so\nmuch, and once again you are ready. You are ready to help us\nmeet our challenges and protect our values. And for that as a\nmother and citizen, I say thank you -- thank you to the PTA and\nall of you who are among its leaders.\nAnd during your conference here, I hope you will continue to\ncelebrate your achievements. Since the turn of the century, the\nnational PTA has been at the forefront of our country's efforts\nto create a better world for all children. Child labor laws,\ncomplusary public education, the national health service, special\neducation, juvenile justice issues, all that we have addressed as\na nation in the past hundred years -- in these and many issues,\nwe have seen the strong role that the PTA has played, both at the\nnational level and in countless communities across our country.\nAnd I know that as we prepare for a new century, and for a\nnew millennium, all of us can count on your being there again.\nOn behalf of the President, I want to thank you for helping to\nput the well-being of our children first in the recent budget\nnegotiations. The PTA was one on the first organizations that\nrealized that threats to programs like school lunches were\nthreats to the well-being of all our children. Your rallies on\nthe Hill and your participation in an active education coalition\nwere key to our efforts to honor America's historic commitment to\neducation, and to providing all children in this country with the\nknowledge and skills they will need to fulfill their own god-\ngiven potential.\nAnd I am so pleased that your priorities and initiatives for\nthe next years will also address these important issues --\nprotecting children from violence, AIDS education, reaching out\nto preschool parents, working with schools of education at\ncolleges and universities to make it possible for more parents to\nbe encouraged to participate in their children's education.\nParental involvement is the key to how well our children will do.\nSome of you know that I do think it takes a village to raise\na child, but it takes strong parents who are committed to being\ntheir children's first teachers, to make sure those children get\na good start in life, and to make sure the village lives up to\nour responsibilities as well. But despite all of the work you\nhave done and the stands you have taken, we cannot let down our\nguard. We must stand very firmly on the side of public education\nand we need an even louder chorus of parental voices in the\nupcoming fights over the budgets to come. Because, even as\nteachers and schools prepare to welcome record numbers of\nstudents, some fifty-two million this September, and we know that\nour classrooms will be filled with more children than there were\neven in the baby-boom generation. And these children will need\nthe time and attention of more teachers. They will need text\nbooks, they will need school buildings that are not falling down\naround their ears.\nAnd yet there are some in congress who are proposing to\nfreeze the education budget in the face of this new generation of\nstudents who need the same support that I could expect when I was\n2\ngoing to school. This is a time to invest in education, not a\ntime to retreat from our historic investment.\nYou know that as our global economy becomes even more\ncompetitive and demanding, that all of us children and adults\n-- must sharpen and raise our skills -- we cannot walk away from\nthe higher national educational standards set by Goals 2000. The\nnational PTA helped turn Goals 2000 into law. And it is working\nwell in 46 states. I ask you to help us defend these standards\nfrom those who would wish to reverse this progress.\nI also want to congratulate American public education; too\nmany people for too long have only accented the negative, and I\nfor one am tired of that. America is filled with good news and\npositive stories about how people are solving problems. And just\nrecently we saw a report that American students are second to\nonly students in Finland when it comes to reading ability. Let's\nmake sure Americans know that, because we've sure gotten all the\nbad news about educational achievement in the past.\nSo we know we can make progress and our students can live up\nto high expectations, but we have to keep working. And I urge\nthe National PTA to become an active partner in Secretary Riley's\n\"Read Write Now\" effort. He is attempting to link one million\ndisadvantaged kids with three hundred thousand reading mentors\nthis summer. It is the one-on-one personal connection that\nnobody, nobody can argue against. It is what lights the eyes of\na youngster who all of a sudden recognizes a word, and it is what\nwarms the heart of the adult who takes the time to work with that\nchild. Just think of what they could do to turn around the lives\nand school success of young people, if three hundred thousand of\nus mentor a young boy or girl this summer.\nWe also know that computer skills are important and the\nPresident is attempting to make sure that every school is hooked\nup in America to the Internet. We do need to make sure that\nthere are technology literacy funds available, but even more so\nwe have to make sure that our teachers are trained to use those\ncomputers in the classrooms.\nSo there is much, as you gather here in Washington, you have\nevery reason to be proud of. I was thinking to myself how in the\nlast few years the National PTA is again at the forefront of our\ndebates about education, and about our children. And we know\nthat parents today need to help. Every one of us has some area\nwhere we rely on someone else. Whether it's the teachers or\nschools, the doctors and nurses or hospitals, the police on our\nstreets, the people we will never meet, who make sure our air and\nwater are clean and that our food is fit to eat -- we are all\ninterconnected. But I want to spend a few minutes today talking\nabout specially the challenges we parents face in today's world.\nParticularly because we are living in a media dominated age.\n3\nIt is a topic I feel very strongly about, and I want to expand on\nthe thoughts I shared with some of you at the National PTA\nLegislative Conference earlier this year.\nSpecifically, I want to talk about television. Like it or\nnot, and some days I do and some days I don't, TV is a fact of\nlife. Hundreds of channels with everything from up-to-the-date-\nnews to 24-hour-a-day weather channels to talk shows, to violent\nmovies, to what everyone finds as we use our remote control\ndevices. And for many of our children, those television images\nare disturbing, they are what some call \"junk food for the eyes.\"\nAnd we have in every home in America children who are being\ninfluenced by the images and ideas that come into those homes\nthrough our television sets.\nNow for those of us who are parents, trying to raise\nhealthy, well-adjusted, compassionate children, it is easy\nsometimes to feel helpless against such a barrage of images and\nnegative influences. But, in no small part due to the National\nPTA's advocacy and leadership on this issue, we are finally on\nthe road to changing this situation. Let me thank you for\nworking with the National Cable Television Association in the\nFamily and Community Critical Viewing Project, which is helping\nparents to control the effects of television violence and\ncommercialism on their children.\nThe President and the Vice President have long supported\nefforts to give parents the tools to make television a positive\ninfluence in their children's lives. And I believe that these\npast few months have marked a hopeful turning point for families\nand their relationships to those TV sets in their homes.\nEarlier this year, the President successfully advocated for\nwhat is called a v-chip in TV sets. It is a device that parents\ncan use to block out programming that they consider\nobjectionable. It is totally within the authority of the\nparents. In February, at a White House meeting, The President\nhelped persuade the nation's television broadcasters and\nproducers to establish a voluntary ratings system that will\ninform parents about the content of shows they plan to air.\nThat means that when the v-chip is operational, in just a few\nyears, and the ratings system is going, parents will be able to\nmake judgments by looking at this rating system and then\nprogramming the TV set to decide whether or not a program will be\npermitted to be viewed in their homes.\nBut parents don't just want to tune out bad shows, they also\nwant to tune in good ones for their children. American families\nneed more and better programming for children. This is\nespecially true for elementary school-age children. A study\nreleased by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public\nPolicy Center showed that while 75 percent of programming aimed\n4\nat pre-schoolers could be called \"high-quality,\" just 26 percent\nof programs targeted toward children ages six to eleven could be\ncalled good. Nearly half of the programming was rated \"low\nquality.\"\nNow the President, with your help, has been working hard to\nestablish a minimum requirement for television broadcasters: all\nthat we are taking is for three hours a week of educational,\nchild-friendly programming. I don't think that is too much to\nask. And the good news is that it's on the verge of happening.\nA majority of the FCC Commissioners will soon, I believe, take\npositive action on this issue.\nThe three-hour requirement is simple, and it is fair. As\nVice President Gore noted a few days ago, \"It leaves 98 percent\nof broadcasting time for other programs.\"\nNext month, the President, the Vice-President, Tipper Gore,\nand I will meet with media executives and children's programmers\nto discuss ways to strengthen children's television.\nWe simply must demand more of the people who are producing -\n- and profiting -- from the shows that young people watch. From\nmy point of view, the very popular \"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers\"\nshow, for example, has no place on any lineup described as\n\"children's programming.\"\nExperts have said that the show is \"devoid of any enriching\nvalue. \"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers\" show for the example has\nno place in any line-up described as children's programming.\nExperts have said that show is devoid of any enriching value.\n\"Mighty Morphin Power Rangers\" is one of the most violent\ntelevision programs, on television today. Hundreds of acts of\nviolence, from kicking to missile launches, are depicted in each\nepisode. The shows teach children that heroes always resolve any\nconflict through violence. They convey to children the sinister\nmessage that the more powerful your weapon, the more powerful you\nare. And even though they are zapped, kicked and fired upon\ncountless times, the Power Rangers never feel any pain or suffer\nany injury.\nAs a result of the show's popularity, young children on\nplaygrounds across America are imitating these so-called\n\"superheroes,\" they kick, they punch, they fight each other, as\nwell as the imaginary archvillains Rita Repulsa and Lord Zedd.\nNow you and I know that kind of playground activity has been\na hallmark of playgrounds for generations. Long before\ntelevision, and long before specific shows like the \"Power\nRangers\". But the repetition, the intensity of this message\nthat children see over and over again on television is different.\n5\nAs Dr. Robert Phillips of the American Psychiatric\nAssociation explained, \"Children are like little VCRs, they see\nsomething once and then they repeat it over and over again.\"\nI know this not just from experts and news accounts, but\nfrom children themselves. At a roundtable discussion about the\nV-chip and TV violence with children and their parents, some of\nwhom were PTA members, I met a 10-year old boy who told me that\nhis playmates \"just pretend they are Mighty Morphin Power Rangers\nor the X-Men and then they' just go around pretending they're\nkilling each other or such things and think nothing of it.\"\nProducers and broadcasters of shows like the \"Mighty Morphin\nPower Rangers\" say that they are simply giving children what they\nwant to watch. In truth, they are appealing to the worst in our\nkids at the very times they are most likely to be watching TV.\nAnd, broadcasters are hiding the best children's programming in\nthe least-watched \"throw-away\" hours.\nWe must stop showing violent, harmful programs to our kids\nduring prime viewing hours. It is time for our media executives\nto show some greater responsibility for the children of America.\nAnd as adults and as parents it is time for us to stand up\nand be counted. Decency and civility are values that are\ncritical to the functioning of our society. Otherwise, in the\nabsence of efforts to reach out to one other to teach each other\ngood and positive lessons about how we work together and about\nhow children grow up together, we will find ourselves and our\nchildren so inured to violence and sensationalism that we will\nnot be able to help themselves.\nWe have enough evidence now from psychological and\neducational studies which shows that children, particularly from\nless stable homes, without the kind of structure that many of us\nhave tries to impose, despite the media in our own houses, these\nchildren are particularly vulnerable to such messages. And they\ntake those messages to heart. Like those little VCR's and they\nplay back what they have learned.\nAs parents we cannot wait to act. We are on the front\nlines. We have to take responsibility, we have to start in our\nown homes by making clear what is and what is not acceptable\ntelevision watching. We have to be willing to work with our\nschools as you have done to help families learn how to watch\ntelevision critically, and to raise questions so that children\nknow the difference between fantasy and reality. We have to give\nchildren something else to do besides watch television hour after\nhour after hour.\nIn many neighborhoods we should be working to keep schools\nopen from three to six so that children are not on their own and\nunsupervised. We should be enlisting ourselves once again in\nprograms, not only to mentor young people but to play with them,\nmore recreational activities. We should take a stand against the\n6\npolicies making it more difficult for young people to find\nextracurricular opportunities.\nI was recently in Denver and I young man told me that he had\nbeen a wrestler for his first two years in high school, but next\nyear because of budget cutbacks his family was being asked to pay\n$150 for him to participate in that extracurricular activity.\nMany of us saw the Richard Dreyfuss movie, \"Mr. Holland's Opus\"\nand we could chart the decline in the drama, music, and art that\nwas available that I took for granted in the 1950's and 1960's in\nmy schools, where children now are not being given those\nopportunities. Television is being used to fill a void that\nparents, teachers, schools and communities used to fill with\npositive, productive activities for young people supervised by\nadults.\nSo while we take a stand against what we see on television,\nwe should take a stand as you have done on behalf of providing\nmore opportunities for children to say yes to, to give them\nsomething that is positive for them to learn from and be part of.\nThere is wonderful opportunity in our country now, because I feel\nit as I travel around from place to place. Americans are tired\nof just wringing our hands at our problems -- we want to roll up\nour sleeves and get about the business of solving them.\nAnd every where I go I find people who are doing just that.\nAnd it doesn't matter if I'm in an inner city school in\nPhiladelphia, or in a school outside of Duluth, or in Corpus\nChristie, or in the San Frenado valley of California, everywhere\nI go it is so heartening to me, because every parent I talk with,\nevery teacher, every young person is saying the same thing ---\nthey are saying to me, as a young boy in Philadelphia, in a very\ntough neighborhood, in an inner city school that was attempting\nto be a haven against gangs, and graphti, and violence, he looked\nat me and he said, \"You know Mrs. Clinton, most of us are good\nkids, but the only kids who get the attention are the bad kids,\nyou know they are the only kids who get on television, they are\nthe only kids who people really worry about sometimes, and most\nof us are really doing the best we can.\"\nAnd I believe that, I know, I've looked into the faces of\nthousands and thousands of preschooler, and elementary kids, and\nmiddle schoolers, and high school students, and they are good\nkids. And even the ones who are teetering on the brink of gang\npressures and family disruptions, and all of the problems\nchildren should not have to contend with, but do in today's\nworld, they are desperate to be pulled back. They want some adult\nto say to them, 'You are a good young person, don't waste your\nlife, learn to read, get out and do something positive for\nsomebody else. Don't feel sorry for yourself, don't let yourself\nbe turned into a victim.\"\nThat is what the PTA has done for a hundred years. Because\nyou have brought together parents and teachers in a partnership.\nYou have presented a united front to our children that reminds ne\n7\nof my late father who used to say \"You get in trouble in school,\nyou get in trouble at home. \" And you know, that's the way it\nneeds to be again.\nAnd that is the crusade you are leading. Our children need\nto know that the adults in their lives care about them and we\ncare about them so much that we not only love them, we discipline\nthem. And we not only teach them, we guide them. And we're not\nonly trying to do our best at home we are trying to make sure\nthey get their best at school. That is what we owe to our\nchildren.\nThat is what you have done for a hundred years. And I\nbelieve that, just as at the time the PTA was formed, you have\nnever been more necessary. You have never been more important to\nparents, struggling to make sense of a world that is sometimes\nvery difficult to understand. You have never been more important\nto stand up against the forces of commercialism that would use\nour children, that would try to sell them products, like tobacco\nat an early age, that is not good for them.\nYou have stood against those kinds of pressures, and what we\nnow must do, is with the same level of confidence and optimism\nthat created the PTA, go forth into this next century, just as\ncommitted, just as concerned and just as ready to take on the\nchallenges of this century, as were those who came before you.\nI am very optimistic, I see positive signs everywhere I go\nof people taking back whether it's the authority in their own\nhomes over the television set, or parental involvement in the\nschools. And what I hope each of us will do as we meet our\nchallenges and protect our values, is to make it clear to every\nAmerican, that commitment to children, to their education, their\nhealth and to their well-being is not a luxury. It is central to\nwhat of nation and people we will be.\nLady Bird Johnson once said that children are likely to live\nup to what you believe of them. I want every child in America to\nhave at least one adult in their lives who believes that child\nhas God given potential that will enable that child to be a good\nproductive citizen, a good worker, a good family-member. And if\nwe could just commit ourselves to reaching out to all those\nchildren, then I believe our future is in very good hands.\nThank you for what you have done for one hundred years; but\ndo not grow weary doing this work -- we need the PTA now more\nthan ever. Thank you all very much.\n###\n8\nEXCERPTS FROM IT TAKES A VILLAGE\nPersonal stories\n(p. 277 - 278) \"My parents did not worry so much about the content of the television shows\nmy brothers and I watched as they did about the amount of time we should spend at it, if they\nlet us. They wanted us reading, doing chores, or playing outside, so they regulated our\nviewing hours strictly. Bill and I restricted both the amount and the kind of television\nChelsea watched as a child, and even now we check up from time to time on her TV and\nmovie watching.\"\nThe V-chip and other technology\n(p. 278) \"Parents are beginning to come up with ways of defending themselves and their\nchildren from the excessive influence of television. They may eventually get some help from\ntechnology, such as the V-chip included in proposed telecommunications legislation. The V-\nchip is a computer chip with which parents could block television programs designated as\ncontaining material unsuitable for children. Making the technology available is only half the\nbattle; putting it to good use will require a strong, clear rating system like the one we now\nhave for movies.\"\nWhat parents can do\n(page 278) Know what their children are watching: \"In the meantime, parents are on their\nown in making sure children are not watching inappropriate shows or too much television,\nperiod. They can continue to trade their own \"ratings\" informally. They can encourage the\nnewspapers and magazines that are beginning to gear reviews of movies and music toward\nparents to cover television in this way as well. They can also teach their children how to\nwatch television, the same way they teach them to cross the street: carefully.\"\n(page 279) Use television as a learning tool: \"We can ask children why characters act as\nthey do and help them to distinguish between responsible and irresponsible acts. We can get\nthem to talk about how the families on television are different from theirs and from other\nfamilies they know. We can relate television to real-life situations. When Roseanne and Dan\nfret over bills because Dan's business is going under, for example, we can explain to our\nchildren that sometimes parents need to figure out ways to make sure they can meet all their\nresponsibilities.\"\n\"Used wisely, television can help children to distinguish between fantasy and reality\nprecisely because the fantasy it projects feels so real to them. Identify aspects peculiar to\n\"TV land\" that may seem obvious to an adult but aren't necessarily clear to a child. For\ninstance, when watching a thirty-minute drama or sitcom, point out that it's not realistic to\nsolve a problem in the span of a half hour. Explain that this is how writers and directors\nadapt to scheduling needs and discuss how the situation might have played out in real life.\"\n(page 279) Tum the television off: \"There is another option parents might consider: Just\nturn the televisions, video games, and VCRs off for an evening, a week, a regular day each\nweek. When I made this suggestion in an interview with Woman's Day, readers responded\nenthusiastically. Some parents, fed up with not only depictions of violence but the excessive\ninfluence of television in general, wrote to say they had already tried out the idea.\"\nPositive examples\n(page 278) The Cable Industry and the PTA: \"A publication entitled \"Taking Charge of\nYour TV: A Guide to Critical Viewing for Parents and Children\" is available from the\nFamily and Community Critical Viewing Project, and initiative sponsored by the National\nPTA and the cable industry to teach television viewing skills to parents, teachers and children.\nIt suggests ways parents can talk to kids about what they are watching, which not only makes\ntelevision a less passive pastime but transforms it into a learning tool.\"\n(page 279 - 280) Parents: \"Here and there, parents are banding together and discovering\ntheir collective strength. The South Florida Preschool PTA monitors children's programming\non the Miami television stations, with members volunteering to watch programming for one-\nor-two-week blocks to determine whether the stations are complying with the law.\"\n(pages 283) The Media: \"When he was a news director at WCCO-TV in Minneapolis, John\nLansing realized that the more his station's news coverage resembled an entertainment\nprogram, the weaker its connections to its community were becoming. He decided to convene\ntown meetings to allow the station to reacquaint itself with the expectations of its viewers.\nAs a result, the news operation dropped its tabloid-style coverage, and WCCO became a\npioneer in \"family-sensitive viewing,\" reducing or elimination descriptions and images of\nviolence during designated early evening hours. Even so, WCCO has managed to maintain its\nfirst-place market share.\"\n(page 284) \"Television could take a cue from the several newspapers that have developed\nchildren's beats and long-term reporting projects focusing on family issues. The Cleveland\nPlain Dealer, for instance, has added a new \"family section\" that runs every Saturday. So far,\nit has run stories on children's television viewing habits (along with tips on how to make TV\nwatching a more constructive activity), on ways grandparents and grandchildren can spend\nmore time together, and on building stronger families (accompanied by personal stories about\npeople in the region.) The section also includes a regular family finance column, with\ninformation on everything from the cost of buying a family pet to how to take a family\nvacation without breaking the bank.\"\nThe Children's Television Act and the Federal Communications Commission\n(page 280) \"The Children's Television Act of 1990 limits the amount of time the networks\ncan devote to commercials during children's programming. It also directs the FCC more\nbroadly to review, as part of the licensing procedures, whether stations air shows that \"serve\nthe educational and informational needs of children.\"\n(page 280) \"Many parent and consumer groups (are) urging the FCC to enforce its\nregulations and to strengthen them, by requiring the networks to air more educational\nprogramming. In 1951, twenty-seven hours of quality children's programming aired each\nweek. The President and FCC Chairman Reed Hundt would like to see the FCC require each\nnetwork to broadcast at least three hours a week. As of this writing, the FCC has not taken\naction on this proposal. In response to public petitions, however, Westinghouse, which has\nrecently purchased CBS, has voluntarily made such a commitment. The FCC's decision will\nnot affect cable stations, since they are considered exempt from government regulations\nbecause they do not use the public airwaves.\"\nResearch\n(page 281) \"In May 1995, John Wright and Aletha Huston, professors of human development\nat the University of Kansas, released the results of a four-year study on how television\ninfluences the academic skills, school readiness, and school adjustment of low-income\nchildren. They found that preschoolers who watched as little as twenty-five minutes per day\nof educational children's programs like Sesame Street did significantly better on standardized\nverbal and math tests when they started school and consistently spent more time on reading\nand other educational activities than did children who watched primarily noneducational\ncartoons and adult programming.\"\nNote: For more research, see attached report on violence and youth by the American\nPsychological Association.\nConsumerism\n(pages 288 - 292) See attached.\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n269\nSeeing Is Believing\nwhose 1987 book, Raising PG Kids in an X-Rated Society,\nsums up the challenge parents face. Long before I met\nher, I admired Tipper for having the courage to stand up\nC\nAs television has ravenously consumed our attention, it has weakened\nand say what millions of other fathers and mothers were\nthe formative institutions of church, family and schools, thoroughly\nthinking: that some of the media our kids are exposed to\nr\neroding the sense of individual obedience to the unenforceable on which\nmanners and morals and ultimately the law depend. Obviously, we\nis doing them harm.\nneed to rebuild our families, our schools and our churches. But we can\nTipper and her watchdog group, the Parents' Music\nnot complete these reforms until something is done about television, for\nResource Center, were leading forces behind the effort to\nin both its advertising and its programming it has created demands\nget record companies to put warning labels on music\nthat appeal, not to the best in our natures, but to the worst.\nrecordings with violent, degrading, and sexually explicit\nJOHN SILBER\nmessages that are inappropriate for children. Yet Tipper\nwas attacked and ridiculed for her outspokenness, and\naccused of supporting censorship for advocating volun-\ntary warning labels.\nFinally, other public figures have taken up her call for\nA FRIEND OF mine told me about a visit she made to a\naction. C. DeLores Tucker, head of the National Political\nfamily with five children. Down in the basement, she\nCongress of Black Women, teamed up with William Ben-\ncould hear the two teenage boys and their buddies singing\nnett against \"gangsta\" rap. They confronted media giant\nalong to the latest \"gangsta\"-rap CD. On the first floor,\nTime Warner, which has since decided to sell its stake in\nthe six-year-old and the eight-year-old were slouched at\nInterscope Records, the company that produced some of\neither end of the couch, motionless in front of the screen,\nthe music with the most offensive lyrics. Although it has\n\"surfing\" the channels. Click. A futuristic battle scene.\ntaken a long time, public opinion seems to be mobilizing\nClick. Graphic images of a recent murder in the city.\nto force the entertainment and news industries as well as\nClick. Two men fighting. Click. What appeared to be a\nthe government to address concerns about the effects of\n\"docudrama\" about rape. In an upstairs bedroom, their\nthe media on our children and our society.\ntwelve-year-old sister was watching an \"R\"-rated video\nThe recent attention that has been brought to bear on\nwith a friend. It was a clear case of media assault.\nthe content of movies is also overdue, given their power-\nWhen my friend gently raised the issue of the poison\nful influence on the culture. At least we have a movie rat-\nthat was pouring into those children's minds, her harried\nings system, although there is much we can do to refine\nhostess could only say, \"Look, I'm doing my best.\"\nit and to improve the content of films in the first place.\nClearly, this mother, like nearly every parent I talk with,\nFor example, we can look to countries such as Great\ncould use some assistance from the village.\nBritain and Australia, which have stricter codes for vio-\nSome of that assistance has come from Tipper Gore,\nlent content. But in this chapter the focus is primarily on\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n271\nwhat happens all day on our television screens, both be-\n15,000 and 20,000 hours watching television,\ncause that is where most people see the movies Holly-\ncompared with 11,000 in school; every year the\nwood makes and because its presence and influence so\naverage American child watches more than a\npervade our society.\nthousand stylized and explicit rapes, murders,\nFormer Federal Communications Commission chair-\narmed robberies, and assaults on television.\nman Newton N. Minow sounded the alarm long ago. In\n1961, Minow decried television as a \"vast wasteland\" and\nSince the 1950s, a steady stream of articles, books, and\nurged that the networks be held to a high standard of\nstudies have documented the harm television does to\npublic interest. Since then, Minow has devoted himself\nchildren. The American Psychological Association's Com-\nto this vitally important issue in a variety of communica-\nmission on Violence and Youth points to three major\ntions and public service positions. Most recently, in\nreports, each a decade apart-by a surgeon general's\nAbandoned in the Wasteland: Children, Television, and the\ncommission in 1972, by the National Institute of Mental\nFirst Amendment, he and Craig L. LaMay catalogued the\nHealth in 1982, and by the American Psychological As-\noverwhelming evidence of television's negative effects\nsociation's Committee on Media in Society in 1992-\nthat has accumulated over the past three decades and took\nwhich reviewed hundreds of studies to arrive at the same\nbroadcasters to task for evading the consequences of\nunshakable conclusion: that \"viewing violence increases\ntheir decisions by hiding behind the First Amendment.\nviolence\" and \"prolonged viewing of media violence can\nMinow's portrayal of how deeply televised violence\nlead to emotional desensitization toward violence.\"\nhas embedded itself in our national psyche is as shocking\nNinety-eight percent of American homes have at least\nas the violence itself:\none television set, which is watched each week for an\naverage of twenty-eight hours by children between the\nSo routinely do Americans accept television's\nages of two and eleven, and twenty-three hours by teen-\nversion of their lives, that on January 18, 1993,\nagers. Children who grow up in lower-income families,\nwhen seventeen-year-old Gary Scott Penning-\nwith fewer organized activities or places to play, watch\nton walked into his high-school English class\neven more TV than their more affluent peers.\nin Grayson, Kentucky, and fired a .38 caliber\nChildren themselves report that certain television\nbullet into his teacher's forehead, killing her,\nshows encourage them to engage in sexual activity before\none of the students who witnessed the mur-\nthey are ready, to behave aggressively, and to be disre-\nder remembered thinking, \"This isn't supposed\nspectful to their parents. Eighty percent of Americans\nto happen. This must be MTV.\" Must be.\nresponding to a 1993 Times-Mirror poll said that they\nThe average student in Gary's senior class had\nbelieve TV is harmful to society and especially to chil-\nalready seen 18,000 murders on television. The\ndren. And we know that saturating young minds with\naverage student in the class had spent between\nincreasingly graphic and sensational depictions of vio-\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\nlence prevents them from developing the emotional and\nit is not fair to hold television to a higher standard. But\npsychological tools they need to deal with the threat and\nas Minow points out:\nthe reality of violence. Shootings, beatings, even killings,\nbegin to seem normal and, in an odd way, painless. Chil-\nThe tradition of oral and written storytelling\ndren become numbed-\"desensitized\"-to violence.\nembodied in both fairy tales and modern chil-\nWhether, and under what circumstances, the violence\ndren's literature developed in the service of chil-\npeople see on television and at the movies actually incites\ndren's moral education, and its lessons helped\nto define the boundaries between childhood\nviolent acts is 2 question researchers have debated for\nyears, ever since the surgeon general's 1972 report. As\nand adulthood. In traditional settings, violence\nwith smoking and lung cancer, however, we know that\nwas but one possible outcome of conflict, not\nthere is a connection. Yet just as somebody-most often\nthe only one or even the primary one. More-\nover, stories that included violence surrounded\nsomebody well paid by the tobacco companies-is sure\nto stand up each time a new finding confirms the linkage\nit with meanings created by adults for in-\nbetween smoking and lung cancer and shout, \"That's not\nstructing children, not by adults for entertain-\ndefinitive,\" every time a new report draws a connection\ning adults.\nbetween the violence on our television screens and the\nTelevision executives are also quick to say that they are\nviolence on our streets, some in the entertainment indus-\na major provider of information as well as entertainment.\ntry try to refute, or at least to dilute, the claim.\nThey stress that it is the duty of journalists to report\nYou don't have to conduct research worthy of a Nobel\nwhat goes on in the world. It's true that children now get\nPrize to grasp that what most children are seeing on tele-\nmost of their information about events at home and\nvision can't be good for them. Just turn on your televi-\naround the world directly from the media instead of fil-\nsion, any time of the day, any day of the week, and see\ntered through their parents, teachers, or other adults.\nwhat is competing for their attention. I'll bet that if a\nAnd it's also true that we need to be made aware of crime\nstranger came into your home and began telling your\nand violence so that we can take actions to protect our-\nkids stories about the same kinds of characters and\nselves, such as supporting measures to impose sensible\nevents, using the same kinds of words and pictures, you'd\ngun control. But why, when we turn on the evening news\nthrow him out. You wouldn't wait for a surgeon general's\nthese days, do we find ourselves awash in depictions of\nreport to validate what your instincts as a parent told you\nsensationalized violence that are increasingly difficult to\nwas.a hazard to your children's mental and emotional\ndistinguish from the gore that permeates the latest \"ac-\nhealth.\ntion\" series?\nDefenders of television argue that children are subjected\nIn 1992, the Center for Media and Public Affairs\nto images of violence in all sorts of media-including\ncounted the acts of violence on ten television channels in\nfairy tales and other literary classics-and complain that\nthe course of a single eighteen-hour broadcast day. When\nPRINTED IN THE U.S.A. COPYRIGHT 0 1995 SIMON a SCHUSTER\n17A\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n275\nthe study was repeated just two years later, the center\nand neglect. The lurid accounts tend to eclipse positive\nfound that the incidence of television violence had in-\nstories about priests and other clergy who help people\ncreased by 4' percent, with the greatest rise occurring in\ncome to terms with loss and find meaning in their lives,\nnews shows. Another recent study found that local news\nteenagers who feed the homeless, clean up our parks, and\ncoverage of murders tripled last year, even though there\nhelp the elderly, and families who pull together in times\nwas no corresponding rise in the recorded murder rate.\nof stress.\nThe explanation is obvious. News executives are acting\nSmall wonder, then, that many children grow up skep-\nmore single-mindedly from the same motive that drives\ntical that organized religion can offer guidance and sus-\ntheir colleagues in the entertainment business: violence\ntenance, that they or their peers can be a force for good,\nsells. Ellen Hume, a senior fellow at the Annenberg\nthat families can be a lasting source of strength and sta-\nWashington Program in Communication Studies, points\nbility. The merciless, minute scrutiny of crimes and vic-\nout in her recent report, \"Tabloids, Talk Radio, and the\ntims emphasizes and exaggerates the powerlessness of\nFuture of News,\" \"News about crime and violence is\nindividuals, especially in the minds of children, whose\ncheap and easy to cover.\"\nown lack of power in the world is all too plain to them.\nThe exhaustive coverage of violence and bad news in\nMore insidiously, it undermines their faith in institu-\ngeneral contributes to young people's increasing sense of\ntions, their belief that individuals can band together for\nalienation and to the dysfunctional, antisocial behavior\ngood as well as for evil.\nthat accompanies it. Many kids become depressed or\nLeonard Eron, a psychology professor at the Univer-\nhave nightmares because of the barrage of bloodshed\nsity of Michigan and a leading expert on the effects of\nthey see on TV. It numbs them to the pain and destruc-\ntelevision, warns: \"In the same way television teaches vi-\ntiveness of actual violence, encouraging a stance of ironic\nolence, it now teaches youngsters that\ndysfunctional\ndetachment. At worst, it contributes to what social sci-\nfamilies are par for the course.\" Professor Froma Walsh\néntist George Gerbner has identified as \"the mean world\nof the University of Chicago echoes him. Consistently\nsyndrome,\" where children internalize the negative at-\nseeing the sensational way families are portrayed on\ntributes of the world as they see it portrayed in the media.\nmost talk shows and many prime-time programs encour-\nChildren also learn from television that we prize cele-\nages people to \"view their own families through a glass\nbrity above all else, regardless of how it is achieved. At the\ndarkly and look for pathologies,\" even when families are\nsame time, television may leave them with the impres-\n\"just trying to cope as well as they can.\" Such research\nsion that people hardly ever do anything good or right\nsuggests that whatever is provided as a steady diet on\nand that few, if any, adults are worthy of respect. We are\ntelevision becomes reality in the minds of frequent view-\nsaturated with stories about priests who molest children,\ners. That's not good news for any family, given what's\ngangs of young thugs who vandalize and victimize indis-\ncurrently on the menu.\ncriminately, and families that are nightmares of abuse\nAnd the menu is expanding. Video games have trans-\n20\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\nformed millions of television sets into scenes of blood\nman says. \"They are getting rewarded for destroying\nand violence that children not only watch but participate\npeople in a game.\"\nin: Agile fingers race across the controls of best-sellers\nWe already know that television doesn't just affect\nlike Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct, directing char-\nwhat we think; it also affects how we think. The medium,\nacters on the screen to execute the most desired out-\nas Marshall McLuhan pointed out, is itself the message.\ncome-a brutal murder. There are also moves like\nThe episodic, reactive, almost frantic pace of what is\nthe Neck Breaker, the Skeleton Grab, the Skull Rip, and\nbroadcast makes children feel and act frantic and short-\nthe Death Scream. In Mortal Kombat, a computer-\nens their attention spans and their patience for activities\ngenerated voice urges \"Finish him!\" as blood continues\nthat take time and problems that don't yield immediate\nsolutions.\nto spray.\nRecently, a fourteen year-old boy from a Maryland\nChildren-and teenagers-need stimulation, but there\nsuburb where actual violence rarely intrudes described\nis a limit to how much they need, and what kind. Con-\nhis fascination with electronic violence to Washington\nsider for a moment what it means to put the remote con-\nPost Magazine staff writer David Finkel. \"I like vio-\ntrol in the hands of a preschooler. She does not have to\nlence,\" he said. \"I like seeing violence. I just really like\nwork hard to be entertained, to use her imagination as\nwatching violence.\" This boy's parents are involved in\nshe would if she were listening to a story or playing\ntheir son's life-they go to the movies with him and try\nmake-believe. She does not have the ability to screen out\nto interest him in reading-but they also believe he is old\nwhat she sees and hears, let alone to evaluate it. And least\nenough to watch what he wants to see, listen to what he\nof all, faced with the dancing images and bright colors\nwants to hear, and play the games that amuse him. This\nand exciting sound effects, is she equipped to walk away.\nboy assures Finkel that his life would be very different\nThe pull of television is irresistible to children, rivet-\nwithout this connection to violence. \"I'd be scared to be\ning their attention the way traffic accidents draw rubber-\nwith anyone else,\" he explains. \"I wouldn't be able to re-\nneckers. The homes in America where television sets\nlate to anybody else because they've all seen it.\"\nblare night and day are like highways clogged with acci-\nIt is too early to evaluate the effects of video games\ndents. Only, in this case, the children gawking mind-\nfully. But already some psychologists have pointed out\nlessly, overstimulated and underchallenged, are the victims.\nthat children's direct control of the violence in video\ngames could be more harmful than what they only ob-\nserve passively. Dr. Carole Lieberman, a UCLA psychi-\natrist and former chair of the National Coalition on\nMY PARENTS did not worry so much about the content\nTelevision Violence, refers to video games as a \"new\nof the television shows my brothers and I watched as\ndrug.\"\"I think it's worse than television violence because\nthey did about the amount of time we would spend at it,\nchildren are pushing the buttons themselves,\" Dr. Lieber-\nif they let us. They wanted us reading, doing chores, or\n78\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\nplaying outside, so they regulated our viewing hours\nbut transforms it into a learning tool. We can ask chil-\nstrictly. Bill and I restricted both the amount and the\ndren why characters act as they do and help them to dis-\nkind of television Chelsea watched as a child, and even\ntinguish between responsible and irresponsible acts. We\nnow we check up from time to time on her TV and\ncan get them to talk about how the families on television\nmovie watching. Parents are beginning to come up with\nare different from theirs and from other families they\nother ways of defending themselves and their children\nknow. We can relate television to real-life situations.\nfrom the excessive influence of television. They may\nWhen Roseanne and Dan fret over bills because Dan's\neventually get some help from technology, such as the\nbusiness is going under, for example, we can explain to\nV-chip included in proposed telecommunications legis-\nour children that sometimes parents need to figure out\nlation. The V-chip is a computer chip with which parents\nways to make sure they can meet all their responsibilities.\ncould block television programs designated as containing\nUsed wisely, television can help children to distinguish\nmaterial unsuitable for children. Making the technology\nbetween fantasy and reality-precisely because the fan-\navailable is only half the battle; putting it to good use will\ntasy it projects feels so real to them. Identify aspects pe-\nrequire a strong, clear rating system like the one we now\nculiar to \"TV land\" that may seem obvious to an adult\nhave for movies.\nbut aren't necessarily clear to a child. For instance, when\nIn the meantime, parents are on their own in making\nwatching a thirty-minute drama or sitcom, point out\nsure children are not watching inappropriate shows or\nthat it's not realistic to solve a problem in the span of a\ntoo much television, period. They can continue to trade\nhalf hour. Explain that this is how writers and directors\ntheir own \"ratings\" informally. They can encourage the\nadapt to scheduling needs and discuss how the situation\nnewspapers and magazines that are beginning to gear re-\nmight have played out in real life.\nviews of movies and music toward parents to cover tele-\nThere is another option parents might consider: Just\nvision in this way as well. They can also teach their\nturn the televisions, video games, and VCRs off-for an\nchildren how to watch television, the same way they\nevening, a week, a regular day each week. When I made\nteach them to cross the street: carefully.\nthis suggestion in an interview with Woman's Day, read-\nA publication entitled \"Taking Charge of Your TV: A\ners responded enthusiastically. Some parents, fed up with\nGuide to Critical Viewing for Parents and Children\" is\nnot only depictions of violence but the excessive influ-\navailable from the Family and Community Critical\nence of television in general, wrote to say they had al-\nViewing Project, an initiative sponsored by the National\nready tried out the idea.\nPTA and the cable industry to teach television viewing\nImagine what might happen if we all turned off our\nskills to parents, teachers, and children. It suggests ways\ntelevisions for an entire week. The quiet-and the other\nparents can talk to kids about what they are watching,\nactivities we could take up-might be habit-forming.\nwhich not only makes television a less passive pastime\nHere and there, parents are banding together and dis-\n80\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n28,\ncovering their collective strength. The South Florida\nand A&E are staples of Clinton family viewing. But only\nPreschool PTA monitors children's programming on the\n65 percent of American households now have access to\nMiami television stations, with members volunteering to\ncable, and the demographics of the remaining 35 percent\nwatch programming for one- or two-week blocks to de-\nincludes a disproportionate share of the nation's chil-\ntermine whether the stations are complying with the law.\ndren. As with many other social changes of the past\nThe Children's Television Act of 1990 limits the\nfifty years, the children hardest hit by the negative im-\namount of time the networks can devote to commercials\npact of the media, television in particular, are those in\nduring children's programming. It also directs the FCC\nlow-income families.\nmore broadly to review, as part of the licensing proce-\nThat's why public television, which has consistently\ndures, whether stations air shows that \"serve the educa-\nprovided educational programming for children, deserves\ntional and informational needs of children:\" In three\nour tax dollars and charitable contributions. Shows like\nyears, the Florida group found, the networks failed to\nSesame Street entertain while they teach math and read-\nmeet the law's requirements. In their 1995 report, they\ning. Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego? makes learn-\nnoted that Miami commercial television stations were\ning geography fun and exciting. With the help of music\ndevoting only I percent of total programming time to\nvideos and special effects, Bill Nye, the Science Guy trans-\neducational programs for children.\nports science out of the classroom and into the world.\nThe Miami group is among the many parent and con-\nMany \"hit\" educational shows are creations of the Chil-\nsumer groups urging the FCC to enforce its regulations\ndren's Television Workshop, which was founded in 1968\nand to strengthen them, by requiring the networks to air\nto explore television's potential as an educational medium.\nmore educational programming. In 1951, twenty-seven\nIn May 1995, John Wright and Aletha Huston, profes-\nhours of quality children's programming aired each week.\nsors of human development at the University of Kansas,\nThe President and FCC Chairman Reed Hundt would\nreleased the results of a four-year study on how television\nlike to see the FCC require each network to broadcast at\ninfluences the academic skills, school readiness, and\nleast three hours a week. As of this writing, the FCC has\nschool adjustment of low-income children. They found\nnot yet taken action on this proposal. In response to pub-\nthat preschoolers who watched as little as twenty-five\nlic petitions, however, Westinghouse, which has recently\nminutes per day of educational children's programs like\npurchased CBS, has voluntarily made such a commit-\nSesame Street did significantly better on standardized\nment. The FCC's decision will not affect cable stations,\nverbal and math tests when they started school and con-\nsince they are considered exempt from government reg-\nsistently spent more time on reading and other educa-\nulations because they do not use the public airwaves.\ntional activities than did children who watched primarily\nThe advent of cable television has dramatically ex-\nnoneducational cartoons and adult programming.\npanded offerings available to children, for better and\nEducators, community leaders, church groups, and\nworse. Channels like Disney, Discovery, Nickelodeon,\nothers can join in the effort to demand support for pub-\nPRINTED IN THE U.S.A. COPYRIGHT 0 1996 SIMON a SCHUSTER\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n283\nlic television and better commercial programming. They\nto watch the shows for which they are responsible. They\ncan also organize boycotts of gratuitously violent, sexu-\ncould form their own advisory panels-preferably of\nally explicit, or otherwise offensive programming. One\nparents-who could be counted on to put children's in-\nhousehold won't have much of an impact, but a village or\nterests ahead of financial ones.\ntwo can make or break a Nielsen rating percentage point,\nJournalists and broadcasters tell me they have been\nand ratings are TV's most critical barometer for making\ntalking among themselves about these issues and looking\nprogramming decisions.\nfor ways to fulfill both their professional and public re-\nTeachers can play a part, both directly and indirectly.\nsponsibilities. At their annual Family Conference, held\nFirst and most important, they can do their best to make\nthis year in Nashville, Al and Tipper Gore brought\nreading fun. They can also assist parents in helping to\ntogether broadcasters, children's advocates, advertisers,\nedúcate children about how television manipulates them\nresearchers, and parents to discuss the media's impact\nand undermines values like compassion and kindness\non children and families. Oprah Winfrey has decided\nthat they are learning at home, in their place of worship,\nto steer her show in a more positive direction. One tele-\nand at school.\nvision station decided not to carry the more lurid talk\nJournalists and news executives have responsibilities\nshows, and another is considering dropping them. A few\ntoo. When violence is newsworthy they should report it,\nlocal TV stations have decided to abandon the tabloid\nbut they should balance it with stories that provide chil-\napproach and get back into the news business.\ndren and adults with positive images of themselves and\nThere may be monetary as well as moral rewards for\nthose around them, taking care not to exacerbate nega-\nsuch choices. When he was a news director at WCCO-\ntive stereotypes. To report the truth in a thoughtful man-\nTV in Minneapolis, John Lansing realized that the more\nner, mindful of the potency of the written word and the\nhis station's local news coverage resembled an entertain-\ntelevised image, is to be not only a good journalist but a\nment program, the weaker its connections to its commu-\nresponsible citizen.\nnity were becoming. He decided to convene town\nAcknowledging that commercial television is driven\nmeetings to allow the station to reacquaint itself with the\nby the need to make a profit does not let executives and\nexpectations of its viewers. As a result, the news opera-\nprogrammers off the hook. As Newton Minow said in a\ntion dropped its tabloid-style coverage, and WCCO be-\n1995 keynote address to a conference of Children Now, a\ncame a pioneerin \"family-sensitive viewing,\" reducing or\nleading nonpartisan, nonprofit organization for children:\neliminating descriptions and images of violence during\n\"In an ideal world, the people who work in television\ndesignated early evening hours. Even so, WCCO has\nwould have to take an oath like the Hippocratic oath:\nmanaged to maintain its first-place market share.\n'Do no harm.\" How could they uphold it? They could\nNumerous journalism associations and programs en-\nbegin by asking themselves if they would allow their own\ncourage balanced and open-minded reportage. One such\nchildren, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, and neighbors\norganization is the Casey Journalism Center at the Uni-\nA\nSCHUSTER\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nversity of Maryland, which awards fellowships to re-\nporters, editors, producers, and news directors. The\nEvery Business Is\nrecipients get the chance to participate in conferences\nand meet with experts on these issues. The intent is to\na Family Business\nencourage thoughtful, in-depth, well-documented re-\nporting\nThe Golden Rule does not mean that gold shall rule.\nTelevision could take a cue from the several news-\nBARBARA REYNOLDS\npapers that have developed children's beats and long-\nterm reporting projects focusing on family issues. The\nCleveland Plain Dealer, for instance, has added a new\n\"family section\" that runs every Saturday. So far, it has\nrun stories on children's television viewing habits (along\nwith tips on how to make TV watching a more construc-\nMr FATHER distrusted both big business and big gov-\ntive activity), on ways grandparents and grandchildren\nernment. When I was growing up, he never tired of\ncan spend time together, and on building stronger fami-\nquoting President Eisenhower's warning against the mil-\nlies (accompanied by personal stories about people in the\nitary-industrial complex and the dangers of concen-\nregion). The section also includes a regular family fi-\ntrated, unaccountable power in anyone's hands. I thought\nnance column, with information on everything from the\nof him during a trip I made to South America in Octo-\ncost of buying a family pet to how to take a family vaca-\nber 1995, when I happened to hear a reference to the\ntion without breaking the bank.\nwords of an earlier President, Theodore Roosevelt. I was\nTelevision, movies, video games, and music are here to\nto give a speech to students and faculty at the University\nstay and will continue to be influential in shaping opin-\nof Chile in Santiago. When the rector of the university\nions and behaviors in the years to come. As parents, we\nintroduced me, he referred to remarks that Roosevelt\nmust be willing to reassert our authority over what enters\nhad made in the same hall eighty-two years before. The\nour households. As creators and consumers of the media,\nformer President, he said, had warned against the ex-\nand as citizens of the village, we must be willing to join\ncesses of unchecked corporate power.\nwith one another to press for improvements in what our\nIntrigued, I-tracked down a copy of Roosevelt's speech\nchildren see and hear. A single act has little impact, but\nand was struck by how relevant his message remains\nmillions of decisions-to turn off television sets or to re-\ntoday:\nject certain movies or CDs or video games-give us the\nvoltage to send a message to advertisers and program-\nBy allowing, with no control, this concentra-\nmers that will reach them loud and clear.\ntion of enormous enterprises in the hands of a\nfew\nmany evils have arisen\nWe must\nconsumerism\n288\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n39\nvalues. If either is undermined, the consequences will\nrities to create aspirations that can be satisfied only by\nend up costing us all more in the long term, materially\nthe purchase of some product or service. If all of us said\nand otherwise, than we can possibly gain in the short\ntoday, \"Okay, I have enough stuff. From now on I will\nterm.\nbuy only the bare necessities,\" that would be a disaster\nIn this book I have talked about the responsibilities of\nfor our economy. But spurred on by cultural messages\nindividuals and institutions for the future of our children\nthat encourage us to feel dissatisfied with what we have\nand the village they will inherit. No segment of society\nand that equate success with consumption-messages\nhas a more significant influence on the nature of that\nfueled by the advertisements that constantly bombard\nlegacy than business. We live in an era of what political\nus-we face the far more likely danger of allowing greed\nscientist Edward Luttwak calls \"turbo-charged\" capital-\nto overshadow moderation, restraint, and the stability\nism, which is characterized by intense competition;\nthat comes from saving and investing for the future\nbreathtaking technological changes; global financial, in-\nrather than satisfying short-term desires.\nformation, and entertainment markets; constant corpo-\nThe threat is greatest to our children, who will inherit\nrate restructuring; and relatively less public control and\nthat future and the values that shape it. \"As a society,\"\ninfluence over the private economy.\nwrites David Walsh in Selling Out America's Children, \"we\nThis combination of changed circumstances poses\nAmericans of the late twentieth century are sacrificing\nnew problems for families and communities, and for the\nour children at the altar of financial gain,\" and, in Walsh's\nchildren who grow up in them. Business affects us pow-\nphrase, to the lure of \"adver-teasing.\" Those of us who\nerfully as consumers, as workers, as investors, and, more\nbelieve in the free market system should worry about\nbroadly, as citizens of the society it helps to create and as\nwhat we are in danger of becoming: a throwaway society\ninhabitants of the environment it has a strong hand in\nsustained on a diet of unrealizable fantasies, a society in\nshaping. Our circumstances therefore require new and\nwhich people-especially children-define self-worth in\nthoughtful responses from every segment of society, par-\nterms of what they have today and can buy tomorrow.\nticularly from business.\nWalsh documents the careful calculation-and hun-\ndreds of millions of dollars-that go into advertising\ncampaigns directed at children, whose desire for instant\ngratification and lack of sophistication make them easy\nOUR economy grows as it gives consumers more and\ntargets. Children parked in front of the television for\nbetter products to choose from, at competitive prices.\nhours on end are particularly susceptible, and advertisers\nOn the whole, this system has been a boon to us, not\nknow it. After the Federal Communications Commis-\nonly allowing us to live comfortably but providing more\nsion repealed regulations that limited the amount of time\nAmericans with jobs. But one of the conditions of the\nthat could be devoted to commercials during children's\nconsumer culture is that it relies upon human insecu-\ntelevision shows in 1984, the number of commercials\n290\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\n291\nagain increased, and program-length commercials-\ngressional Record in July 1995. Among the revelations was\nshows that revolve around toy-based characters-ex-\nthat the company, as Waxman put it, \"studies third-\nploded.\ngraders to determine if hyperactive children are a poten-\nThe Children's Television Act passed by Congress in\ntial market for cigarettes.\"\n1990 again set limits on commercial time during chil-\nIn cases where children are directly and seriously en-\ndren's programming, but compliance has not always been\ndangered by products, the government can and should\nstrictly enforced, although the FCC is trying. \"Kids\nstep in, as the President has done in his proposal to have\ntoday,\" observes FCC chairman Reed Hundt, \"can iden-\nthe Food and Drug Administration restrict children's ac-\ntify more cereals than Presidents.\" Nor is the drumbeat\ncess to cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, curtail cigarette\nto buy, buy, buy confined to commercials; advertising\nadvertising that appeals to them, and require tobacco\npermeates children's lives. Even their sports heroes have\nbecome walking (and slam-dunking) advertisements for\neverything from Nikes to Pepsis to Big Macs.\n\"I WANT TO PROTECT YOU FROM GOVERNMENT\nMass consumerism and \"adver-teasing\" have parents\nBUREAUCRATS\"\ncompeting with multinational corporations not only for\ntheir children's values and beliefs but for their health.\nDON'T SMOKE, KIDSI\nAccording to one study, Joe Camel, the cartoon mascot\nof Camel cigarettes, is now as recognizable to six-year-\nolds as Mickey Mouse. Cigarette brand names have be-\ncome affixed to virtually every professional sport, from\nUNLESS YOU WANT TO LOOK SLIM\nAND SOPHISTICATED\nsoccer to skiing to sailing. If you doubt that tobacco\ncompanies target children as prospective consumers, ask\nCARCINO Together WP can work things out\nyourself what gets three thousand American children to\nstart smoking on any given day, or talk to Dave Goerlitz,\nan actor who appeared in commercials for Winston cig-\narettes for seven years, until he became so disgusted by\nthe company's blatant attempts to lure children that he\nleft the business and joined an antismoking crusade. Or\ntake 2 look at the previously secret documents from\nPhilip Morris, which produces two out of every three\ncigarettes American children smoke, that U.S. Represen-\ntative Henry Waxman of California read into the Con-\nCopyright 1995 by Herblock in The Washington Post.\nHILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nIT TAKES A VILLAGE\ncompanies to fund an educational campaign designed to\nTHE consumer culture's assault on values adds to the\ncounter the message that smoking is \"cool.\" (Predictably,\npressures families are under in today's fast-changing\nthe tobacco companies are spending millions of dollars\neconomy. Most of us remember a time when business\nto fight the proposal through legal action in the courts\nwas an anchor in our communities. After World War II,\nand through an advertising campaign against \"govern-\nwhen America had about 40 percent of the world's\nment bureaucrats.\")\nwealth and only 6 percent of its population, our nation\nBut government is a partner to, not a substitute for,\nenjoyed an economic boom in which businesses were ex-\nadult leadership and good citizenship. Parents must be-\npected to produce goods and services of high quality, not\ncome more willing to stand up to consumer-pressures\nonly for the purpose of bringing in profits for stockhold-\nfrom advertisers and from their own children. They can\ners but also to create the jobs and higher incomes that\nresist the impulse to \"prove\" their love by showering chil-\nwould build the middle class. After all, if no one had jobs\ndren with things they do not need and give them pre-\nor incomes, who would buy the goods and services that\ncious time and attention instead. They can make a moral\nbusinesses were producing?\nstatement to their children and to manufacturers by re-\nIn recent years, however, long-established expecta-\nfusing to buy products that promote gratuitous violence,\ntions about doing business have given way under the\nsexual degradation, or plain bad taste. In the summer of\npressures of the modern economy. Too many companies,\n1995, clothing designer Calvin Klein withdrew an ad-\nespecially large ones, are driven more and more narrowly\nvertising campaign targeted at teenagers that featured\nby the need to ensure that investors get good quarterly\nyoung models in sexually suggestive poses after con-\nreturns and to justify executives' high salaries. Too often,\nsumers objected.\nthis means that they view most employees as costs, not\nIf parents do not take a stand, how can we expect chil-\ninvestments, and that they expend less and less concern\ndren to resist the consumer culture's message that style is\non job training, employee profit sharing, family-friendly\nmore important than substance? We can measure its po-\npolicies, shared decision making, or even fair pay raises\ntential for destruction in the young lives already lost to\nthat share with workers-not to mention their families\nmurder over a ski jacket or a set of fancy new hubcaps.\nand communities-gains from productivity and profits.\nParents need help from the village to counteract and to\nEven workers' jobs may be sacrificed as executives seek\ncurtail the force of this message. The broadcasters and\nshort-term profits by \"downsizing\" or \"outsourcing\"\npublishers who provide time and space to advertisers\n(farming out to independent contractors work previ-\nmust exercise greater restraint and better judgment.\nously done in-house) or moving production to countries\nBusiness must work with government and families to\nwhere wages are lower and environmental and other reg-\nfind ways of balancing the interests of industry with the\nulations less stringent. Instead of \"We're all in this to-\ninterests of children.\ngether,\" the message from the top is frequently \"You're\non your own.\"\nFIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nREMARKS FOR WHITE HOUSE MEDIA CONFERENCE\nJULY 29, 1996\nTALKING POINTS\nWe all know television is a fact of life. It is also\ntremendously powerful medium that touches all of our lives -\n- and has a particularly profound influence on our children.\nThis segment of our discussion is about that influence.\nAs the President has pointed out, the technology of\ntelevision is not intrinsically good or bad. Television has\nthe potential to be a powerful force for good in our\nchildren's lives. But it depends so much on this: Do the\ndecisions, made by the people in control of that technology\nvalue children?\nNow more than ever, American families are seeking more and\nbetter programming for their children. Parents don't just\nwant to tune out bad shows, they want to be able to tune in\ngood ones -- shows that stimulate, inform, and challenge our\nchildren.\nAnd thanks to research done by people such as Professors\nJohn Wright and Aletha Huston, co-directors of the Center\nfor Research on the Influences of Television on Children at\nthe University of Kansas -- who have been at the White House\nbefore to talk about their compelling work -- we know what a\npositive effect educational programming can have on\nchildren's intellectual stimulation and academic\npreparation.\nToday we will hear from Professor Huston just how powerful -\n- and positive -- television's influence can be.\n###\nEffects of Early Childhood Media Use on Adolescent Achievement\nA report by the staffs of the \"Recontact\" Project:\nAt the University of Massachusetts, Amherst:\nAt the University of Kansas, Lawrence:\nDaniel R Anderson, PhD.\nAletha C. Huston, Ph.D.\nPatricia A Collins, Ph.D.\nJohn C. Wright, Ph.D.\nKelly L. Schmitt, M.S.\nElizabeth McElroy, MA\nDeborah L. Linebarger, M.S.Ed.\nThe authors acknowledge the generous support of the Markle Foundation of New York City, and its\nPresident, Lloyd N. Morrisett. We are especially grateful to the more than 570 young people and their\nfamilies in Springfield, Massachusetts, and Topeka, Kansas, who participated in this research both as\npreschool children, and much later as adolescents.\n1\nExecutive Summary\nTwo groups of preschoolers were observed in separate studies during the early 1980s -\none in Massachusetts and one in Kansas. In 1994, when they were 15 to 18 years old, these\nyoung people were interviewed, and their high school transcripts were obtained One major\npurpose was to determine whether early viewing of educational television programs predicted\nlater academic achievement.\nThe results support the hypothesis that curriculum-based child informative programs\ncontribute to children's educational development. We call this the Early Learning model of TV\neffects. With statistical controls for parents' education, viewing of child informative programs\nduring preschool was positively related to high school academic achievement, academic self\nconcept, and the value the participants placed on academic attainment.\nThe results contradict the popular notion that preschool exposure to rapidly paced\nprogramming (especially Sesame Street) leads to reduced attention span and consequently to\npoor academic achievement, and disinterest in such activities as book reading. Sesame Street\nviewing was positively associated with academic achievement and book reading.\nThe findings also contradict the hypothesis that attractively produced children's\neducational television leads to an inattention to language and hence to poor language skills.\nSesame Street viewing was positively related to preschool vocabulary and to a high school\ngrades in English.\nViewing educational television in preschool appears to contribute to children's academic\nperformance many years later. It is obvious that the content learned at age 5 cannot influence\nhigh school performance directly. Instead, a rich diet of educational television may help children\nto enter school with the academic skills required for the tasks they encounter, increasing the\nlikelihood of early success. They may also have higher expectations for themselves and make a\ncorrespondingly greater investment of time and effort toward mastery of the knowledge and\nskills taught in school. Teachers may view such children as good students and offer them\n2\nchallenging and stimulating activities. This early positive experience in school may set a child on\na trajectory of success, self-confidence, and positive reputation among teachers that has long-\nterm consequences for later academic achievement.\n1\nINTRODUCTION\nIn the early 1980s we conducted two major investigations of preschool television\nviewing. One investigation was led by Professors John Wright and Aletha Huston of the\nUniversity of Kansas, and the other by Professor Dariel Anderson of the University of\nMassachusetts (Anderson, Field, Collins, Lorch & Nathan, 1985; Huston, Wright, Rice,\nKerkman, & St. Peters, 1990). In 1994 we collaborated to locate and interview the adolescents\nwhom we had studied in those investigations. One major purpose was to determine the\nrelationships between preschool educational TV viewing and adolescent academic achievement.\nBackground\nThe potential of television for positive effects on the growth and development of children\nhas been debated for almost 50 years. Evidence for effects of positive programming, however,\nhas been limited primarily to laboratory investigations of immediate impact, or to field studies\nthat estimate impact over a few years' duration at most. These studies provide persuasive\nevidence that carefully crafted educational programs for young children can teach academic skills\nand positive social behavior (see Comstock & Paik, 1991 for a review). What has been missing\nare demonstrations of the impact of positive programming over much longer periods of time.\nA summative evaluation of Sesame Street's first two years (Bogatz & Ball, 1971)\nreported that viewers showed greater gains than non-viewers on a number of basic academic\nskills (e.g. letter and number knowledge, classification skills). A follow-up report also noted that\nat least at the beginning of formal schooling, viewers were rated higher by their teachers on an\nindex of school readiness (Bogatz & Ball, 1972).\nIn the Kansas preschool study (one of the studies in this follow-up), children who viewed\nSesame Street often when they were 3 years old showed greater gains in vocabulary by age 5\nthan did less frequent viewers (Rice, et al., 1990). More recently, the television viewing,\ncognitive and social development of preschool children from lower income homes was\nextensively studied for a period of three years. Even after controlling for initial language skill\nand home background characteristics, children who viewed more educational programming\n2\nbetween ages 2 and 4 scored higher than infrequent viewers on standardized tests of math skill,\nvocabulary, letter and word recognition, and school readiness (Wright & Huston, 1995).\nIn sum, the research to date suggests that viewing child-informative programming during\nthe preschool years has benefits for academically relevant skills and school readiness. Although\nschool readiness has undeniable importance for its own sake, the value of educational viewing\nwould be even greater if these early gains were maintained throughout the elementary and\nsecondary school years. By what processes could such an optimistic chain of causality occur?\nOne model, the \"Early Learning Model,\" predicts that the cognitive and attitudinal\nbenefits of viewing educational programming as a preschooler lead to success when the child\nenters school. Children who begin school with basic preacademic skills (e.g., knowing the\nalphabet, how to write their names, how to count) are apt to succeed in the tasks presented, and\nare likely to be viewed by teachers as competent students. These initial advantages snowball into\na cycle of high expectations for oneself. Early success and teachers' positive perceptions lead\nchildren to develop positive attitudes about school, high levels of motivation, and high levels of\nachievement. These build upon themselves over time, and are reflected in academic achievement\nand achievement motivation in the high school years. Because low-income families have\nchildren at risk for entering school with few preacademic skills more often than high-income\nfamilies, and because teachers sometimes hold negative stereotypes about the ability of low-\nincome students, the advantages conferred by educational viewing may be especially important\nfor children from low income families.\nNot all child development specialists and educators agree that educational television will\nhave positive effects on children's academic skills. Jane Healy (1990) argued that television, in\ngeneral, and Sesame Street, in particular, retards children's language development and reduces\nreading ability. Because television is so visually attractive, she claims, it teaches an inattention to\nspoken language which, in turn, slows language acquisition and ultimately reading achievement\nJerome Singer (1980) proposed that viewing such rapidly paced programming as Sesame\nStreet leads to a reduced attention span. Short content units, frequent cuts, and frequent\n3\nmovement induce the orienting reflex and block reflective and sustained thought. These combine\nto reduce a child's ability to inhibit movement and sustain a line of thinking. Ultimately, of\ncourse, such a shortened \"attention span\" should have negative consequences for cognitive\ndevelopment and academic achievement.\nSinger proposed that Mister Rogers' Neighborhood would not have these negative\nconsequences due to the series' relatively long content units and slow pacing of formal features\n(with little movement).\nThe Recontact Study\nThe adolescents interviewed were participants in one of two investigations of preschool\nchildren in the early 1980s. The Massachusetts research group intensively studied children near\ntheir fifth birthday and included concurrent videotape measures of home TV viewing behavior.\nThe Kansas research group provided the first longitudinal investigation of detailed patterns of\nTV viewing in the age range 3 to 7 years. Because the two research groups were in\ncommunication at the time the studies were designed, many of the measures used in the original\nstudies were identical or quite similar.\nBoth groups collected week-long viewing diaries on two occasions within 6 months of\nthe children's fifth birthdays. Those diaries were validated by the concurrent video observations\n(Anderson et al., 1985; Anderson & Field, 1991). The measures of TV viewing during the\npreschool years are among the most accurate and extensive of any field studies of TV impact.\nBecause the names of all programs viewed were recorded, exposure to particular categories of\ntelevision programs was calculated as well as total viewing.\nChildren in both samples were given the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised\n(PPVT-R) during preschool. It is a standardized instrument measuring receptive vocabulary and\npredicts the development of communication skills (Dunn, 1981).\nThe Massachusetts sample was given a measure of task persistence. the Banta\nReplacement Puzzle (Banta, 1970), which consists of a deceptively difficult jigsaw puzzle. An\n4\naverage length of sustained persistence was used in the analyses. The Massachusetts sample was\nalso rated by parents on a scale of temperament developed by Thomas et al. (1963). The activity\nsubscale was analyzed in some analyses reported here. This subscale assesses behaviors\nanalogous to attention deficit with hyperactivity.\nAdolescent Survey\nPreschool viewing diaries were available for 655 children. Of these, 570 or 87.0% were\ninterviewed by telephone. Thirty-five refused an interview and 50 could not be located or had\nunlisted telephone numbers. The average age was 17.46, and ranged from 15.02 to 19.34 years.\nThe individuals interviewed did not differ from those not interviewed on most demographic\ncharacteristics, but the adolescents not interviewed were slightly more likely to have had no\nfather living at home in preschool (making them difficult to trace using the mother's and child's\nlast known surname).\nA brief parent interview was followed by a 30-40-minute interview with the adolescent\nparticipant. They were asked about:\nMedia Use\nTelevision Viewing - Total weekly television viewing time and viewing of different\ncategories of programs.\nReading - Time spent reading books, newspapers, magazines, comic books.\nAcademic Motivation\nAcademic self-concept - Perceived ability and expectancy of success in English, math, and\nscience.\nAttainment value - Perceived value or utility of English, math, and science courses.\n5\nAcademic Achievement\nReported Grades - Students' reports of their typical high school grades in English, math, and\nscience\nTranscript Grades - For 491 adolescents, an official copy of their high school transcript, sent\ndirectly by the school. For the 79 participants whose transcripts were not available,\nestimation procedures based on those with complete information were used to adjust\nself-reported grades for inflated reporting.\nRESULTS\nEach of the three identified models predicting effects of early educational television\nexposure was tested. In each case, preschool viewing of child informative television\nprogramming was tested as a predictor of high school achievement. Differences in parent\neducation and children's early intellectual ability that might affect both viewing and achievement\nwere statistically controlled. This procedure permits disconfirmation of a model if the results\ncontradict it. Alternatively, the results may fail to support a model without actually contradicting\nit, an outcome that weakens confidence in the model without disconfirming it. If the results are\nconsistent with the predictions of a model, that can be considered \"support,\" but the model\ncannot be considered \"proven\". The relations dictated by a model might be equally well\naccounted for by alternative explanations or by factors in the child's environment that were not\nmeasured.\nEarly Learning Model Is Supported\nThe Early Learning Model is outlined in Figure 1. The results supported the model as\nindicated by the directional arrows and check marks.\nChildren's Informative Programs\nExposure to child informative programs predicted vocabulary scores at age 5. Frequent\nviewers had better vocabulary scores than infrequent viewers.\n£010\nEarly Learning\nTheoretical Model\nPreschool\nTeen\nChild-\n+\nInformative\nAcademic\nTV\nAchievement\n+\n+\n+\n+\nParent\nAcademic\n+\nEducation\nSelf-\nconcept\n+\n+\nCognitive\nAttainment\nStatus\nValue\nEarly Learning\nResults\nPreschool\nTeen\nChild-\n+\nInformative\nTotal GPA\nTV\n+\n+*\nAcademic\n+\nSelf-\nconcept\nPPVT\nAttainment\nValue\n\"Limited to boys\nFigure 1\n6\nExposure to child informative programming at age 5 predicted average high school\ngrades in English, math, and science. Children who watched child informative programs\nfrequently in preschool had higher grades than infrequent viewers. Viewing predicted\nachievement better for boys than for girls.\nSesame Street\nOf all the time children watched child informative programs, over half was devoted to\nSesame Street. Sesame Street also has more emphasis on school readiness skills than many\neducational programs. Analyses of exposure to Sesame Street provided clear support for the\nearly learning model. Preschool viewing predicted high school grades equally well for both boys\nand girls.\nMr. Rogers' Neighborhood\nAlthough children watched Mr. Rogers less frequently than Sesame Street, exposure to\nMr. Rogers predicted high school grades for boys. Exposure was unrelated to grades for girls.\nHow Large Are the Differences?\nOne method of understanding how large the differences in grades are is to examine the\nincrease in grade point average for every hour per week of preschool viewing. Grade point\naverage was computed on a 4-point scale with 4=A, 3=B, 2=C, 1=D, 0=F. For every hour per\nweek of viewing child informative programs at age 5, grade point average for English, math, and\nscience in high school increased by 03. For every hour per week of Sesame Street viewing, high\nschool grade point average increased by 052. A child who watched Sesame Street for five\nhours a week (one hour each week day) at age 5 performed in high school, on average, about\n1/4 of a grade level higher than a child who never viewed.\n313\n7\nAcademic Motivation\nChild informative viewing predicted academic self concept in high school. Adolescents\nwho had been frequent viewers made higher estimates of their ability and expected higher levels\nof success in English, math, and science than those who had been infrequent viewers.\nPreschool informative viewing predicted the value attached to English, math, and science\ncourses for boys. Boys who had been frequent viewers in preschool valued achievement more\nthan infrequent viewers did.\nLanguage Deficit Hypothesis Is Contradicted\nContrary to the language deficit model, preschool viewing of Sesame Street was\npositively related to preschool vocabulary.\nContrary to the language deficit model, preschool viewing of Sesame Street was\npositively related to high school English grades:\nAttention Span Model Is Not Supported\nThe positive relation of Sesame Street viewing to high school grades and academic\nmotivation contradicts the model suggesting that programming with short segments and rapid\npace leads to reduced attention span.\nAccording to the attention span model, viewing Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood may increase\npersistence and reduce physical activity level, leading eventually to good school performance.\nAs noted, boys who were frequent viewers of Mr. Rogers had better high school grades than\ninfrequent viewers. Some additional measures collected in the Massachusetts preschool study\nallowed us to establish that the difference in high school grades did not seem to be due to effects\nof the program on preschool task persistence or activity level.\nKU-HDFL\n013\n8\nCONCLUSION\nThese analyses support the Early Learning Model. The findings are consistent with the\nhypothesis that curriculum-based television viewed by preschoolers has a long term positive\nimpact on academic achievement. High school grades and academic motivation were\nmeasurably higher in those participants who viewed relatively more child informative\nprogramming, particularly Sesame Street, as preschoolers.\nThe positive relations of early viewing to achievement and motivation were especially\nstrong for boys. The fact that boys are more often alienated from school and have more frequent\nacademic problems than girls suggests that early experience which keeps them involved,\nmotivated, and eager to learn is especially valuable.\nWhile alternative explanations for these long term relationships may exist, they are not\nattributable to higher ability among children who were frequent users of educational television,\nnor to better education among parents of frequent viewers. Both variables were controlled in the\nanalyses, and neither could account for the observed relations.\nThe findings contradict the assertions that educational television in general and Sesame\nStreet in particular impede academic performance either through interference with language\ndevelopment or by reducing children's attention spans.\nPOLICY IMPLICATIONS\nHigh-quality, curriculum-based educational television can make a significant contribution\nto children's early school readiness and to their long-term school performance and motivation.\nTelevision has the advantage of reaching many children long before they reach formal schooling\nat a very low-cost, relative to other forms of early education. Sesame Street, for example, costs\nabout $6 per regular viewer per year. Educational television should not be considered an\nalternative to other forms of early education, but a part of the educational offerings to young\n07/26/96 18:02 3315 3202\nKC-HDFE\n9\nchildren. In a time when school failure is of national concern, investment in quality educational\nprogramming could provide important benefits.\n*\nYoung children spend 20-30 hours in front of the television set as early as age 2. Some\nof that time could be used to teach rather than merely to entertain.\nJ7\n26/96\n15:02\n5913 561 5202\nKU-HDFL\n42015\n10\nReferences\nAnderson, D.R, Field, D.E., Collins, P.A, Lorch, E.P. & Nathan, J.G. (1985).\nEstimates of young children's time with television: A methodological comparison of parent\nreports with time-lapse video home observation. Child Development, 56, 1345-1357.\nAnderson, D.R., & Field, D.E. (1991). Online and offline assessment of the\ntelevision audience. In J. Bryant &D. Zillmann (Eds.), Responding to the screen:\nReception and reaction process (pp. 199-216). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.\nBanta, T.J. (1970). Tests for the evaluation of early childhood education: The\nCincinnati Autonomy Test Battery (CATB). In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Cognitive studies (VoL.\n1). New York: Bruner Mazel Publishers.\nBogatz, G.A. & Ball, S. (1971). The second year of Sesame Street: A continuing\nevaluation. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.\nBogatz, G.A. & Ball, S. (1972). The impact of Sesame Street on children's first\nschool experiences. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.\nComstock, G. & Paik, H. (1991). Television and the American child. Boston:\nAcademic Press.\nDunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Circle Pines, MN:\nAmerican Guidance Services.\nHealy, J.M. (1990). Endangered minds: Why our children don 4 think. New York:\nSimon and Schuster\nHuston, A. C., Wright, J. C., Rice, M.L., Kerkman, D., & St. Peters, M. (1990).\nDevelopment of television viewing patterns in early childhood: A longitudinal investigation.\nDevelopmental Psychology, 26, 409-420.\nRice, M.L., Huston. A.C, Truglio, R. & Wright, J.C. (1990). Words from Sesame\nStreet: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421-428.\nSinger, J. (1980). The power and limitations of television: A cognitive affective\nanalysis. In P.H. Tannenbaum & R. Abeles (Eds.), The entertainment functions of\ntelevision (pp 31-65). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.\nThomas, A, Chess, S., Birch, H., Hertzig, M., & Korn, S. (1963). Behavioral\nindividuality in early childhood. New York: New York University Press\n11\nWright, J.C. & Huston, A.C. (1995). Effects of educational TV viewing of lower\nincome preschoolers on academic skills, school readiness, and school adjustment one to\nthree years later. Technical Report. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas.\n:-\nwhat\nhereby\nPeggy Charren\n975 Memorial Drive #504\nCambridge, MA 02138\nfile\nPhone/Fax 617-876-6620\nChildrens\nLUNCHEON ADDRESS\nBY\nPEGGY CHARREN\nFOUNDER, ACTION FOR CHILDREN'S TELEVISION\nANNENBERG SCHOOL FOR COMMUNICATION CONFERENCE\nPRESS CLUB\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nJUNE 17, 1996\nI WORKED IN TV IN THOSE DAYS. AT WPIX, THE NEW YORK CITY\nINDEPENDENT TV STATION. I CALLED SHOTS IN THE CONTROL ROOM -\nEVERYONE DID --- , I RAN TALENT SHOWS AT MIDNIGHT, AND APPEARED ON\nTHE NEWS EVERY FRIDAY THE 13TH, CARRYING BLACK CATS UNDER\nLADDERS. IN 1951, CHILDREN'S TV WAS NOT A BIG ISSUE, WITH ME OR\nTHE AMERICAN PUBLIC.\nBY THE LATE 60S, HOWEVER, PARENTS, TEACHERS AND CONGRESS\nWERE CALLING FOR AN END TO SEX AND VIIOLENCE, AND ACT BEGAN IN MY\nLIVING ROOM. FROM THE BEGINNING, ACT'S GOAL WAS NOT TOGET RID OF\nWHAT WAS GHASTLY, BUT TO CREATE A MARKET FOR WHAT WAS MISSING\nFROM SERVICE TO CHILDREN IN AN INDUSTRY LICENSED TO SERVE THE\nPUBLIC.\nNOW THE QUESTION IS: WHAT'S MISSING? IN 1969, \"TV GUIDE™ ASKED\nSOME SOCIAL SCIENTISTS, PSYCHOLOGISTS AND EDUCATORS WHAT\nTHEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON CHILDREN'S TELEVISION: \"THE ULTIMATE\nACCOMPLISHMENT,\" ACCORDING TO TV GUIDE'S SAMPLING OF EXPERTS,\n\"\nIS TO CATCH THE CHILD'S IMAGINATION BY SHOWNG HIM THE WORLD, WHAT\nITS POSSIBILITIES ARE, HOW PEOPLE GET ALONG IN IT, HOW THEY INTERACT\nWITH EACH OTHER, AND WHAT HIS PLACE IN IT MIGHT BE.\"\nI'M SURE THEY WOULD HAVE AGREED THAT \"BIKER MICE FROM MARS\"\nDOESN'T QUITE DO IT.\nFIVE YEARS LATER, IN A 1974 POLICY STATEMENT, THE FCC DEFINED\nPROGRAMS THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED EDUCATIONAL OR INFORMATIVE:\n\"THERE ARE MANY IMAGINATIVE AND EXCITING WAYS IN WHICH THE MEDIUM\n- 2-\nHAS THE CAPABILITIES OF MASS DESTRUCTION OF SOCIETY. ISSUES OF\nSOCIAL CONSCIOUSNESS AND RESPONSIBILITY ARE SHOW THEMES.\"\nI SUPPOSE IF JOE STOPPED ON THE WAY TO MURDER AND MAYHAM TO\nEAT AN ORANGE, THEY'D SAY THE PROGRAM WAS NUTRITION EDUCATION.\nBROADCASTERS LISTED \"YO, YOGI\" AS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO\nEDUCATE AND SAID, \"SNAG LEARNS THAT HE CAN CAPTURE THE BANK-\nROBBING COCKROACH MORE SUCCESSFULLY BY USING HIS HEAD RATHER\nTHAN HIS MUSCLES.\"\nWEIRD! AFTER ALL, HOW MANY KIDS WILL EVER HAVE TO DEAL WITH A\nBANK-ROBBING COCKROACH!\nCHILDREN'S TV TODAY IS A FRONT PAGE ISSUE. WHY SHOULD WE BE\nCONCERNED ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF TV IN THE LIVES OF YOUNG\nAUDIENCES? MOST OF US IN THIS ROOM KNOW THE ANSWERS TO THAT\nQUESTION.\nMOST IMPORTANT: CHILDREN WATCH SO MUCH TV -- 20 TO 25 HOURS A\nWEEK. THEY LEARN FROM WHAT THEY SEE. THEY LEARN THAT VIOLENCE IS A\nSOLUTION TO PROBLEMS, THAT CASUAL SEX HAS NO CONSEQUENCES.\nTHEY PICK UP RACIST SEXIST ATTITUDES DIFFICULT TO DISLODGE. FOR\nCHILDREN AT RISK, TV OPERATES AS A KIND OF SUBSTITUTE PARENT.\nEVERYONE INVOLVED IN LIGHTING UP THE NATION'S TV SCREENS\nSHOULD KEEP REMINDING THEMSELVES THAT ONE IN FOUR OF TV'S YOUNG\nCABLE DOES IT WITH SHOWS LIKE LINDA ELLERBEE'S \"NICK NEWS\" ON\nNICKELODEON, AND HBO'S \"HAPPILY EVER AFTER\" A DELIGHTFUL SERIES\nTHAT TRANSFORMS FAMILIAR FAIRY TALES INTO MULTICULTURAL FESTIVALS\nOF STORY, SONG AND DANCE, AND THE CARTOON NETWORK'S \"BIG BAG,\"\nWHICH FEATURES, AMONG OTHER MAGIC MOMENTS, SOME EXTRAORDINARY\nUSES FOR THE MISMATCHED SOCKS THAT ALWAYS APPEAR IN MY WASHING\nMACHINE.\nUNFORTUNATELY, COMMERCIAL BROADCASTING EDUCATES ALMOST\nNEVER AT LEAST IN REGULARLY SCHEDULED SERIES. AND WHEN IT DOES\nDO IT, THE SHOWS OFTEN APPEAR BEFORE KIDS GET UP IN THE MORNING. AT\n6 A.M. SATURDAY IN BOSTON, WNAC-TV AIRS \"NEWS FOR KIDS,\" AND WSBK\nSHOWS \"BILL NYE, SCIENCE GUY.\" THESE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS ARE\nCERTAINLY NOT DESIGNED FOR PRO-SCHOOLERS, THE ONLY POSSIBLE\nAUDIENCE SEGMENT UP AT 6 A.M. THAT'S WHY THE FCC GUIDELINE SHOULD\nESTABLISH A7 A.M. START FOR QUALIFYING PROGRAMS.\nTO BE FAIR, I SHOULD MENTION THAT ON SATURDAY, WBZ, THE CBS\nAFFILIATE IN BOSTON AIRS \"BEEKMAN'S WORLD\" AND THAT REALLY WONDER-\nFUL NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC SHOW, \"REALLY WILD ANIMALS\" BETWEEN NOON\nAND ONE P.M., AND FOLLOWS THEM UP WITH THE #AWARD-WINNING, LOCALLY\nPRODUCED \"RAP AROUND\" FOR YOUNG TEENAGERS.\nTHIS MEETING AT THIS MINUTE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE FCC IS\nABOUT TO ENSURE THAT THE CHILDREN'S TV ACT WILL PROVIDE MORE\nTERRIFIC CHOICES FOR KIDS. CHANCES ARE THAT THE PROCESSING\nGUIDELINE, WHICH WILL REQUIRE THAT BROADCASTERS OFFER AT LEAST\n-6-\nOPPOSITE SIDES OF A CENSORSHIP DISPUTE WITH SCHOOL OFFICIALS\nthe very FUNNY\nABOUT RACIAL SLURS IN \"HUCKLEBERRY FINN.\" AND I REALLY ENJOYED \"HOW\nTO BE A PERFECT PERSON IN THREE DAYS,\" STARRING HERMIONE GINGOLD IN\nA BIT PART AS A TEACHER.\nWHEN RICHARD PECK, THE AUTHOR OF NUMEROUS YOUNG ADULT\nNOVELS, WAS ASKED WHAT KIND OF STORIES WOULD APPEAL TO YOUNG\nTEENAGERS, HE RESPONDED, \"ADOLESCENTS MUCH PREFER A SWEETLY\nSAD LOVE STORY WITH A HAPPY ENDING TO ANY SORT OF SEXUAL\nEXPLOITATION. THEY LIKE STORIES OF GOOD CHARACTER. BUT THE YOUNG\nWILL NOT BE PREACHED TO. THEY WANT INSTEAD STORIES THAT INSPIRE\nTHEM TO SURVIVE IN THE WORLD AS IT IS: IN THEIR ALMIGHTY PEER GROUP, IN\nTHEIR UNREMITTING NEED TO BE ACCEPTED. THEY DO NOT WANT THE BOAT\nROCKED; THEY WANT TO KEEP FROM FALLING OVERBOAARD. AND SO THEY\nWILL BE DRAWN TO STORIES THEY CAN RISE TO: STORIES THAT PIT THE\nSTANDARD OF THE INDIVIDUAL AGAINST THE RULES OF THE GROUP. THERE\nARE PLENTY OF SUCH STORIES, IF ONLY TELEVISION CAN CHANGE ENOUGH\nTO FIND THEM\nTHE AFTERSCHOOL SPECIALS ARE A NIFTY EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF\nPROGRAMS PECK DESCRIBES. WHY DOESN'T EACH NETWORK ADD ITS\nSPECIALS FROM THE SEVENTIES AND EIGHTIES TO TODAY'S ALL TOO\nOCCASIONAL SHOWS AND SCHEDULE A WEEKLY DRAMATIC SERIES FOR THIS\nUNDERSERVED AGE GROUP? AND WHY NOT RISK A FEW BUCKS BY\nSCHEDULING THEM AT 8 P.M, INSTEAD OF 4 P.M. ON A WEDNESDAY OR\nTHURSDAY? AUDIENCES ARE USED TO THE INDUSTRY PRACTICEOF AIRING\nAFTER-SCHOOL SHOWS EVERY DAY MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, AND\n-8-\nWORK. WITH THESE FIRST RESEARCH REPORTS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF\nA PRESTIGIOUS ADVISARY COUNCIL ON EXCELLENCE IN CHILDREN'S\nTELEVISION, WITH MEMBERS INCLUDING JONATHAN KOZOL, ROGER\nROSENBLATT, MARTA TIENDA, JAMES COMER AND KEN BURNS, THE\nANNENBERG SCHOOL FOR COMMUNICATION HAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED\nITSELF AS A MAJOR RESOURCE AND CONTRIBUTOR TO THE PUBLIC POLICY\nDEBATE ON THESE ISSUES.\nSINCE I BELIEVE THAT ONE THING WE DO NOT DO OFTEN ENOUGH IN THE\nWORLD OF CHILDREN'S TV IS TO HIRE THE BEST WRITERS FOR KIDS' SHOWS,\nI'D LIKE TO CLOSE WITH A QUOTE FROM E. B. WHITE, THAT WONDERFUL WRITER\nWHO KNEW SO MUCH ABOUT MICE AND SPIDERS AND PIGS AND HOW TO\nENCHANT YOUG AUDIENCES. HE WROTE:\n\"CHILDREN ARE DEMANDING: THEY ARE THE MOST ATTENTIVE,\nCURIOUS, EAGER, OBSERVANT, SENSITIVE QUICK AND GENERALLY\nCONGENIAL READERS ON EARTH. THEY ACCEPT, ALMOST WITHOUT\nQUESTION, ANYTHING YOU PRESENT THEM WITH, AS LONG AS IT\nIS PRESENTED HONESTLY, FEARLESSLY AND CLEARLY.\" HE SAID,\n\"ANYBODY WHO WRITES DOWN TO CHILDREN IS SIMPLY WASTING\nHIS TIME. YOU HAVE TO WRITE UP, NOT DOWN.\"\n-10-\n06/22/95\n16:58\n913 864 5202\nRO-HDFL\nEffects of educational TV viewing of lower income preschoolers\non academic skills, school readiness, and school adjustment\none to three years later.\nA Report to Children's Television Workshop\nJohn C. Wright and Aletha C. Huston\nCenter for Research on the Influences of Television on Children (CRITC)\nUniversity of Kansas\nLawrence, KS 66045\nMay, 1995\nThis research was supported in part by a grant from The MacArthur Foundation and by\nChildren's Television Workshop. The authors wish to record their appreciation of that\nsupport. The views expressed by the authors are their own, based on the research, and do not\nnecessarily reflect those of Children's Television Workshop, The MacArthur Foundation, or\nthe University of Kansas. We also wish to record our appreciation for the skilled, diligent,\nand committed efforts of our staff and students on the \"Early Window Project.\" Among them\nare Ronda Derley, Seanna Donley, Angeles Dowd, Darwin Eakins, Jocelyn Freeman, Cydney\nGeneroux, Curtis Gilyard, Lori Goser, Vicky Hamlin, Paul Jefferson, Janice Jones, Kulkanok\nKanoksakharin, Jennifer Klein, Jennifer Kotler, Carrie Lamble, Ora Meyers, Kimberlee\nMurphy, Maria Elena Novak, Sabrina Oppenheimer, Rebeca Perez, Joanne Pickar, Marites\nPinon, Vicki Rawdon, Jane Schneider, Tina Siribodhi, Michcllc St. Peters, Raymond Soh, Jan\nAnder son Tallcy, Rosemarie Truglio, Jacky Watson-Jolly, and Laurel Wheeler.\n06/22/95\n16:59\n0913 864 5202\nEffects of educational TV viewing of lower income preschoolers\non academic skills, school readiness, and school adjustment\none to three years later.\nExecutive Summary\nBackgroundand Purpose of Study\nThis report summarizes the key initial results from a four-year longitudinal study of low-income\nchildren's media use and its relationship to the subsequent development of their academic\nskills, school readiness, and school adjustment.\nMethod\nMore than 250 families with a preschool child participatedin the study. Children were\ntwo or four years old at the beginning of the study, five or seven at the end. All families\nlived in low-income census tracts, and 46% had received means-tested assistance in the\npast three years. About 40% were African American, 40% European American, and 20 %\nHispanic.\nFamilies were evaluated four times, each a year apart, in an office visit lasting about two\nhours, during which the parent was interviewed, and the child was tested on a variety of\nachievement tests and assessment situations.\nA two-hour visit was made to the bome of each family on four occasions, also a year apart,\nto assess supports for social, emotional, cognitive and educational development.\nDuring the year separating each of these home and office assessments, periodic telephone\ninterviews were conducted with the parents, yielding a detailed record accounting for bow\nthe child spent every minute of the preceding day.\nIn analyses of the relationship between television viewing and subsequent academic\noutcomes, statistical controls were applied for parent education, family income, preschool\nattendance, the child's first language, the supportivenessof the home environment, and the\nchild's initial level of language skills at the outset of the study.\nKey Findings\nThe children's viewing of educational children's programming accounted for just under\ntwo hours per week at ages two to four, and declined to about one hour per week by age six\nto seven. Almost 80 % of that viewing up to age five was accounted for by Sesame Sueet.\nNon-educationalcartoon viewing occupied 7-8 hours per week of these children's lives up\nto the time when they started kindergarten, then it declined.\n1\n06/22/95\n16:59\nC913 861 5202\nViewing of adult (general audience) programs was about 16 hours per week at age two\n(mostly because they were with parents who were watching). This viewing declined to 8\nhours by age five or six, then started to rise slowly at age seven, to about 9 hours per week.\nViewing of children's educational programs was negatively related to viewing of non-\neducational cartoons and adult entertainment programming. The relationship was small,\nbut consistent.\nUp to age five, there was a strong positive relationship of viewing educational\nchildren' sprograms in general and Sesame Street in particular to time spent reading or\nbeing read to and time spent in educational activities. It. was still positive but less so at six\nand seven.\nViewing of non-educational cartoons and of adult entertainment programs was consistently\nnegatively related to time spent reading, and also negatively, but less strongly, to time\nspent in educational activities.\nFor the younger children only, prior viewing of children's educational programs in gener al\nand Sesame Street in particular were consistent positive predictors of letter-word\nknowledge, math skills, vocabulary size, and school readiness on age-appropriate\nstandardized achievement tests, even when statistical controls for children's background\nand initial levels of language skills were applied. About 25 minutes per day of viewing\nadded a third of a standard deviation in test scores (about five points on a test with a range\nof scores from 70 to 130 points).\nWith the same controls in place, non-educational cartoon viewing and adult program\nviewing had consistently negative, but somewhat weaker effects on the same outcomes.\nFor six- and seven-year-olds, prior viewing of children's educational programs in general\nand Sesame Street in particular was a positive predictor of reading skill (paragraph\ncomprehension) and also a positive predictor of teachers' judgments of overall school\nadjustmentin first or second grade.\nConclusion\nYoung disadvantaged children's viewing of Sesame Street and other\neducational children's programs appears to play a positive causal role in their\ndevelopment of readiness for school. That contribution occurs between two and\nfive years of agc, and is independent of the contributions of parents' education;\nquality of the home environment, and family income, all of which also make\ncontributions to the same positive outcomes. By contrast, the viewing of non-\neducational cartoons and adult programming has negative effects on readiness for\nschool. Among four- to seven-year-olds educational TV viewing favorably\naffects reading and school adjustment.\n2\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Press Secretary\nFor Immediate Release\nJune 26, 1995\nREMARKS BY THE FIRST LADY HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON\nAT PBS PANEL DISCUSSION\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMRS. CLINTON: Good morning. And welcome, everyone, to\nthe White House for this very important meeting. I am delighted that\nyou could all be with us, and I want particularly to recognize a few\npeople who were able to join us this morning. We have Representative\nim Moran from across the river in Virginia, and Representative\nleanor Holmes Norton from here in the District of Columbia.\nWe are also delighted that Richard Carlson, the\nPresident of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Ervin\nDuggan, the President of the Public Broadcasting Service; Delano\nLewis, the President of National Public Radio; and Larry Irving, the\nSecretary for Communications in the Department of Commerce are also\nall here with us.\nThis is a meeting about a very important subject. It is\nabout the role that television plays in the lives of our children\nand, particularly, the role of public broadcasting. I think that it\nis very important in our country today to acknowledge and admit that\ntelevision is a pervasive influence in our lives and has a\nparticularly significant impact on the development of our children.\nThere are some who have engaged in a long discussion --\neven an argument -- over the last decades about what television means\nin our lives, what the role of violence, for example, in television\nis. But I would like to focus today on an issue that we are now\nfinding more about, and that I hope will influence the debate about\nthe role of public broadcasting and its contribution to children's\ndevelopment as we struggle with and argue over the proper role of\ngovernment.\nMORE\n- 2 -\nPublic broadcasting is for many, many children the only\nchannel available that has consistently effective educational\nprogramming. Probably about 40 percent of our families in America do\nnot have access to cable television. And because of the demographics\nand incomes of those 40 percent of our families, we know that they\nhave a disproportionate number of our children. More than 40 percent\nof our children reside in those 40 percent of our families.\nIf you were to look, as I have done, at the daily\ntelevision schedule of our three major networks and our public\nbroadcasting channel, you would see what is available for those\nchildren in those homes. Now, certainly, there are other options on\ncable, but they are often far outnumbered by channels that provide\ninformation and programming that is not always suitable for our\nchildren.\nBut looking only at the four available channels that\nthose 40 percent of our families have access to, it is clear that\nwhat is available to children with respect to their educational and\ndevelopmental needs is not usually found on commercial television.\nIt is found during the day on public broadcasting.\nAnd there are those who think that the educational\nprogramming of public broadcasting is a luxury. But to them I would\nask: What is the necessity that can be substituted for that luxury?\nWhere are the outlets for the kind of helpful, productive, learning\nopportunities that children have access to on public broadcasting day\nin and day out?\nBut you don't have to take my word for it. You don't\nhave to take anybody's word for it. We actually have research. We\nhave evidence about the impact of television and the impact, in\nparticular, of public broadcasting.\nOne of my great hopes from a meeting such as this is\nthat our decision makers will not just engage in ideological\ndiscussions, but will make decisions based on the evidence that we\nhave available to us. If one disagrees with the evidence -- fine.\nProvide counterevidence. But it is difficult to engage in a\nconversation about what is in the best interests of our children if\nthe people engaging in it are merely taking ideological positions.\nAnd so, today, I have asked some people who have a great\ndeal of experience and knowledge about the impact of television and,\nparticularly, the impact of public broadcasting on children, and\nMORE\n- 3 -\nespecially on low-income children who often do not have the\neducational opportunities, the intellectual stimulation, the academic\npreparation that many of us try to provide for our own children.\nI am sure anyone who has followed our national\ndiscussion about television knows of the woman I am about to\nintroduce. She is someone who, for many years, has been, in effect,\nscunding the alarm about the impact of television. I wish that alarm\nwere heard in every family more loudly than it sometimes is, as well\nas in the board rooms and legislative chambers of our country because\nshe has pointed out, time and time again, that children are shaped by\nwhat they see, by what they hear, by what they are taught.\nAnd the constant, pervasive presence of television in\nmost of our homes is a challenge for parents who will have to learn\nand be willing to accept responsibility for monitoring more closely\nthe television-watching of their children. But it is also a\nchallenge for the larger society.\nAnd so it gives me great pleasure to introduce Peggy\nCharren. She is the founder of Action for Children's Television and\nis currently serving as a visiting scholar at Harvard, continuing to\nexamine and accumulate and analyze evidence about the impact of\ntelevision on our children's lives.\n*****\nMS. CHARREN: There's time for a few questions, and I\nthough that, given that we have the First Lady with us, we would let\nthe First Lady ask the questions today instead of the audience.\nMRS. CLINTON: Well, the one thought that kept running\nthrough my mind after what we've heard is, can you imagine any child\nrushing home from the first day of school and trying to tell the\nPower Rangers that she'd gone to school? (Laughter and applause.)\nYou know, there's just sort of a disconnect there.\nWell, I really find everything that each of you has said\nto be born out in our common experience. Really, it is common sense.\nBut let's see if we can maybe take it one step further for people wr.o\nare still saying to themselves, well, if this is so important,\ncommercial television will pick up the slack; if this is SO\nsignificant in the lives of our children, there will be a market for\nit, so all of what you are saying can be understood and accepted, but\nMORE\n- 4 -\ndoesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that you have to have a\npublic television presence with designated programming for children\nin order to make the point that each of you has supported.\nSo let me ask both Peggy and John and then everyone else\nto comment. Why isn't it likely that if the worst were to happen,\nand the programming that we've already talked about and the\nsignificance of it that the research has demonstrated were to\ndisappear, that that vacuum wouldn't be filled by the existing\nmarketplace?\nMS. CHARREN: I think that if there's anything that my\n27 years of activism on behalf of choices for children on television\nhas proved, it is that even with a lot of conferences, even with\narticles in the paper, even with the people who make that kind of\ntelevision having children, they will not provide the kind of\nprogramming that children need that really enhances education. They\nare more comfortable with the other kind of programming.\nAnd the problem is that when you talk to 2- to 15-year-\nolds in a voice that you want to tell them something important, you\nspeak in a different language to preschoolers, to elementary-age kids\nand to older kids. And if you want to get the most eyeballs watching\nthe commercials, you tend to say things that all children will listen\nto. And maybe all children do read comic books at one point. But\nwhen you talk to them about how wonderful literature is, you do it\nthe way the book business does. And Public Broadcasting handles that\nscreen the way the book business handles children's books.\nMR. WRIGHT: I think the most important thing to think\nabout with respect to the private sector is not that it's unwise, not\nthat it's entirely vicious, not that it's a handicapping condition to\nthe entertainment and education of children, but that they are\nfocused entirely on the bottom line. They exploit children. They\ngather eyeballs glued to TV sets which they then sell to ad agencies\nand advertisers who then re-exploit the children to sell them\nproducts they don't need, food that's not good for them, and toys\nthat enhance their fantasy and their willingness to attend the\nprograms which gather their eyeballs for sale. I think I'll stop on\nthat line. (Laughter.)\nBut the research that they do -- I spoke to the\nexecutive producer of Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, and I asked her,\nwhat kind of research do you do? How do you know what messages you\nare getting across to children? And she said to me -- and this is a\nMORE\n- 5 -\nquote -- \"After every rap we sit around and we ask each other, what\nquestions have we answered; what ideas would children take away from\nthis episode that we have just made?\" And in the research community\n-- this was at a Children Now conference and some of you were there\n-- in fact, you were there by television -- everybody said, you asked\nwho? They said, we asked ourselves.\nUntil we start asking the children, until we start doing\nthe research, something other than market research, until we leave a\nprogram like \"My So-Called Life,\" -- one of the few decent, programs\nfor young people that the commercial ever made that was cancelled.\nNot enough eyeballs to sell. Not a wide enough range of children\nwatching it. And every network has done that. I can remember \"Hot\nHero Sandwich\" on NBC -- a wonderful, wonderful program. What\nhappened to \"Big Blue Marble\" on ABC? And many, many, many more.\nIt is incompatible. The system is incompatible. You've\ngot to do it because air waves belong to the people, the children\nbelong to the people. And you've got to have something for kids that\nis theirs.\nMS. MANZANO: Well, I'd just like to say, the private\nsector won't pick up the slack because I'm always amazed that \"Sesame\nStreet\" hasn't been imitated in the private sector. We've been on\nthe air so long, and everybody agrees that we're great. But nobody\ncares to sort of -- to imitate us. And like you said, there were all\nthese wonderful shows for children that got cancelled right away.\nI was asked once to write for a children's show on\ncommercial television. And I asked, what age group is this show\naimed at? And they said, oh, you know, kids. (Laughter.) Well, how\ncould --- you don't write for a three-year-old the same way you write\nfor a five-year-old, and certainly not a seven-year-old. So I knew\nimmediately that they hadn't even examined themselves and they didn't\neven know what they were going to say to these children. It was\nbottom line. And they started out with the result of what they\nwanted their show to do which was sell a certain product -- not what\nthe show was about.\nMS. CHARREN: And one of the worst problems that\nhappened in the last few years is that the show itself has become a\nproduct too often on children's television on commercial\nbroadcasting. And that's unfortunate because it -- that line between\neditorial and commercial speech so you don't know who's talking to\nyou.\nMORE\n- 6 -\nAnd it means that we're telling our children, one in\nfour of whom lives below the poverty line, what they should spend\nmoney on to feel good, to have friends. And that's really very sad.\nThey can do what they do as long as we have the part of that\nbroadcasting service that is saved for public broadcasting which\ncares first about the public and first about our children. And I'm\nnot sure they care about anything else at all.\nMRS. CLINTON: Joan, do you want to add anything?\nMS. DYKSTRA: No. I think everyone has stated it very\nclearly. I think the bottom line is that we want quality programming\nfor children. They have an opportunity. They can give us quality\nprogramming. I fail to see where it is. I do know that PBS brings\nme quality programming for children.\nMRS. CLINTON: You know, I think it's an important point\nthat the economy that we all rely on is driven by a need to create\naspirations and expectations and, really, unfilled wants. I mean,\nthat's how people continue to buy goods and services. So that's\nreally the reason -- for a market economy in a way that is going to\ncontinue to grow and provide more prosperity for people, it has to be\nrooted, in a funny kind of way, in people's insecurity. I mean, if\nall of us today said to ourselves, we have more than enough stuff, we\nare not buying anything else, and we really meant it, you know, that\nwould not be good for the economy. (Laughter.)\nSo there is a need on the part of the economy, and\nparticularly one like ours, to continue to try to create in our minds\nthe desire for more and different things. And there's absolutely\nnothing wrong with that. That is the way the system works.\nBut I do think there is a dark side that we don't pay\nattention to. And it's something that was just alluded to -- that\nwhen we turn our children and think of our children as miniature\nadults, and really see them primarily as consumers, as little\nshoppers who we want to turn into grown-up buyers of as many goods\nand services as we possibly can sell them, that has a very different\nperspective than if we see them as individuals with certain\npotentials who it is our responsibility as parents, as citizens to\nnurture.\nAnd so there is an inherent conflict as the Professor\npointed out. And it is very difficult, I think, to be fair to\nMORE\n- 7 -\ncommercial television, for them to fulfill a nurturing developmental\nresponsibility when that is not, as they clearly understand, their\nbottom line.\nSo part of what we have to do as a society is to assign\ndifferent roles and responsibilities to different sectors of our\nsociety. And commercial television has a different role and\nresponsibility, particularly as it pertains to children, than public\nbroadcasting.\nAnd I think without that kind of choice, it is very\ndifficult for parents, even those trying hard to be conscientious\nones, Joan, to do what they believe they should do. I mean, teaching\nvalues to children in between commercials on Saturday morning\ncartoons is a lot harder, believe me, than watching \"Sesame Street\"\nor 'Mr. Rogers\" or \"Barney\" or something like that with your child.\nSo it's not an either/or. And that's what I think we\nhave to keep trying to emphasize. It is not an either/or where it's\nonly commercial television or it's only public broadcasting. It is\nboth. And we have to see the responsibilities, particularly for\nchild rearing, in a much broader way so that each sector of our\nsociety, starting with parents, but expanding far beyond just the\nnuclear family, understands they have a role in determining how well\nour children turn out.\nAnd that's really what your research has shown is that\nwe know children are going to watch television. What we have to do\nis provide the best possible choices. But if we don't have the\nchoice, then we've already made the decision, haven't we? And that's\nwhat we're trying to avoid in this discussion about what happens with\nthe future of public television.\nMR. WRIGHT: I'd like to add a parenting anecdote\nbecause I think you did bring in parents and you did bring in\nteachers, and they are going to be critical in the future of kids'\nunderstanding and use of media.\nAnd I'd just like to tell a very quick story. I have\nfour grandchildren, two more on the way. And these four kids love to\nwatch television. They watch lots of television. But none of them,\nas yet, know that there is such a thing as commercial broadcast\nentertainment television. I'm not even sure about PBS. And the\nreason is that television for them is something that you take off the\nshelf in a little box and put it in a machine and play it. And on\nMORE\n- 8 -\nthat shelf are videocassettes and books. And the videocassettes were\ntaped off the air; they were bought; they were rented. I blush to\nadmit, some of them were taped from rented copies. (Laughter.)\nBut they got there because some parent cared enough to\nput them there and to let the children watch over and over again, as\nthey do with their favorite books, the stories that are dear and near\nto them.\nMS. CHARREN: And to follow up on that, a lot of the\nchoices that are available from the new technology, which I mentioned\nearlier, are not available to kids who need them the most. They are\nexpensive. Cable is expensive. Some of the pay channels are money\non top of money, and they provide a number of the choices that cable\ndoes provide for children, and that if we don't really take care of\nthe public sector of broadcasting, we are going to have a situation\nin this country that will make what's going on now look nice by\ncomparison when we don't reach one, whole, big portion of kids\ngrowing up in America. So I want to take very good care of PBS.\nMRS. CLINTON: And I just want to add to that comment,\nPeggy, that we haven't talked this morning about the evidence that I\nthink is now conclusive about the impact of watching violence on\ntelevision and on children's behavior. We have argued about this\nissue ever since the Surgeon General's report back in 1972 talking\nabout the impact of television viewing on children's behavior. There\nhave been many studies since.\nAnd it is like the old problem we have -- every time\nthere is another irrefutable piece of evidence about the linkage\nbetween smoking and lung cancer, there will be somebody, well-paid,\nwho will stand up and say, well, that's not definitive. And we face\nthe same problem when we talk about the effects of violence and\nchildren's behavior.\nBut Peggy is right. I mean, this is not just a do-\ngooder, altruistic, nice thing that people like Peggy and I and the\nrest of us here think should be done because we like children's\ntelevision. Certainly, I do. And I believe strongly in it. And\nthat's what my daughter watched, and we read the books that went\nalong with it.\nBut I am equally concerned about the other side of the\nequation that the Professor talked about. And that is, those\nchildren who are not watching the 25 minutes a day of public\nMORE\n- 9 -\nbroadcasting but are, instead, watching the 25 minutes of commercial\ntelevision without much parental supervision or mediation as to what\nthey are seeing.\nIt is absolutely true that not every child who watches\nhundreds of hours of violent television becomes violent. But most of\nthe reason for that rests in the home and the neighborhood that are\nstructured and coherent enough that the child's experience of\nwatching television is mediated. But in the absence of that\nmediation, and in the absence of the other factors that help a child\nseparate reality from fantasy, that help a child learn empathy and\nsensitivity, it is absolutely clear that the television-watching\nhabits of vulnerable children will affect both their own violent\nbehavior and their response to violence that they see around them.\nIt has a desensitizing impact.\nSo this is an issue that we think goes far beyond the\nnarrow concerns of the group of us who are arguing strongly to\npreserve public television and, particularly, educational and\nchildren's programming. It is also a plea to all programmers of\ntelevision, including commercial television, to think about the\nimpact of your decisions.\nThe bottom line can be described in many ways. Only one\nof those descriptions concerns profitability and the dollars that\ncome in. There's a bottom line to society as well. And we think\nthat bottom line is better served by having better television\nprogramming for our children\nThank you all very much for being with us. (Applause.)\nMORE"
}